Are they insane :areyoucra?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"It's my religion/culture/country"
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
Photonic
Ad astra!
You don't know the half of it, it originated from a movement to stop school bullying entirely by making it a persecutable offense.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
I know how you feel MM. I think the same way. I don't believe religion/culture/country are adequate excuses for the mistreatment of others. But what are we gonna do? Barging in fully loaded and ready to kick butt doesn't solve anything and can be just as bad or worse.
I think it may be best to fight injustice at home and not welcome it here. Maybe all we can really do is encourage others to do the same abroad. I just don't know.
I think it may be best to fight injustice at home and not welcome it here. Maybe all we can really do is encourage others to do the same abroad. I just don't know.
Nooj
none
Kant's categorical imperative isn't widely accepted even in Western philosophy...
That sort of reasoning, I think, may not be universal. If you look at Islamic law for example, stoning some convicted criminals is simply acceptable. How do you challenge that by argument? I don't think you can.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I don't believe that.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Go look it up.
I actually read about that on either Fox or CNN a while back, if it's the same thing I remember.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Senate passes ‘license to bully’ legislation | Michigan Messenger
yup...it's true
and there's a thread too
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ublicans-bullying-ok-when-based-religion.html
Last edited:
You're certainly right that Kant and others have developed ethical/moral systems (not the word I want to use, but I'm a bit brain dead so you'll have to excuse me), but so far I haven't found that any of these surmount the problem(s) of moral relativity. Again, this is a complicated matter with a long history and I don't want to hijack your thread. However, I think I can address the other point you made in a simpler fashion. Personally, I think that the reason "harm slips into being" is less a direct failure of reasoning and more an inherent product of human nature. Specifically, as social animals, we have a natural capacity for empathy. But this capacity is not naturally extended to humanity. Rather, the natural extension is to one's tribe, nation, people, etc. Throughout history, while social groups have universally developed laws prohibiting violent actions, theft, etc., there is an equally univeral tendency to regard the "other" as less than human, and therefore not deserving of the same rights. And there isn't really any logical flaw in such a view:
1) "I am an X"/"I am a member of X group"
2) "X group is the only group that merits fair, humane treatment."
___
"Therefore, it is not wrong to treat all non-X's inhumanely."
Certainly, such an outlook feels very wrong to me, and I would like there to be a way to justify treating all humans equally which didn't rely on an assumption similar to 1) above or to a notion that it would create a "better world" or something equally subjective. So far, no luck. I wrote a paper on the topic of social groups when I was a Freshman which was later published in a sociology journal. It's truly an awful paper, but that's not entirely my fault. A lot of it has to do with the fact the teacher required us to include many specific sources which were so different in so many ways I found myself throwing all sorts of junk into the paper just to meet the requirements. But on the off chance any one is interested: Panxenos: An Outsider's Sociology of Self.
kerravon
Anti-subjugator
The trick is to get people to consider X to be one or more of the following:
humanists
anti-non-humanists
non-racists
anti-racists
non-religious bigots
anti-religious bigots
non-sexists
anti-sexists
non-nationalists
anti-nationalists
kerravon
Anti-subjugator
The truth often lies on the extremeties. Is rape a little bit wrong, a lot wrong, or somewhere in the middle of those extremes?
That's because you're already enlightened and don't see a country's boundaries as being important. Once you get rid of all those arbitrary lines there's not really any concept of war. There's just people milling about and some of them are in trouble and there's some institutions that are designed to get people out of trouble. You would make use of Belgium's police as easily as you would South Korea's army.
All use of force is something you should be wary of. You can get a violent reaction out of the person/group you are using it against, so you need to weigh up the situation shrewdly. Domestically it so happens that you can ring the police emergency number and get massive firepower on your side that will win any fight, so that's why you don't deliberate at all about calling them in.
So how did the thinking go?
Would you like to see some video of Saddam's goons chopping out Iraqi men's tongues? Since you are already enlightened, and thus have empathy for all humans, you will react strongly to the images and not be hesitating - you will be saying "help help, please help these poor people immediately". You will cry if you see (unenlightened) people hesitating and allowing this crime to continue. On the same video you can see bound men being thrown off a roof. Alas I don't have any rape videos to share with you, but since you are enlightened, it should be a simple matter to imagine being raped by Uday and knowing that you can't even call the police to report the crime, because it isn't a crime for Uday to do that. Scream out and there's no-one to hear you. And worse yet, more than half the planet doesn't care, because they are unelightened and consider you and Uday to be of the same tribe so it's "your culture".
Stop trying to resist. It's time to call NATO. And if NATO doesn't spring into action, using some lame excuse like "this is a defence organization and we haven't technically been attacked", get your posse from other world citizenry. Syria is on the table at the moment.
kerravon
Anti-subjugator
So send in the SWAT.
I'm about as trigger-happy as you are rape-happy.
They are just different levels of force required to achieve political goals.
We dont have the SWAT in my country
. Fortunately, the police works just as well to arrest the rapists.:slap:
Dont insult me. I am not rape happy.
No, they are not.
I've known and/or been trained by special ops individuals from several countries, including most of those where English is fairly well known. Some of them use the same special ops teams to resolve internal problems (hostage rescue, dynamic entry, terrorist threats) as they do external problems (same types of problems, as well as other involving urban combat scenerios, HALO/HAHO jumps, etc.). But I'm not aware of any which do not possess law enforcement units which are trained in tactics similar to those of SWAT teams (hostage rescue, scout/sniper ops, dynamic entry, CQB, etc.) Would you be willing to specialize the country you refer to?We dont have the SWAT in my country
I didnt say we dont have an equivalent to SWAT, I said we dont have SWAT
. Dont really know because, well, I have never looked into it. I live in Sweden.
Ah. One of the trainings I attended included a guest instructor who belonged to something called ONI. From what the instructor said, it sounded like something very much like SWAT. I will have to look into it.I didnt say we dont have an equivalent to SWAT, I said we dont have SWAT
Now that I think about it, it would make sense to have an equivalent. I just happen to be so picky that when someone says "then send in the SWAT" I have to say we dont have SWAT, even if we have an equivalent, because even then its not SWAT
. Maybe I am just weird, lol.
I agree that excusing horrific acts on the basis of one's faith or "culture" is abhorrent. Who sets the standards for acceptable conduct? There are many competing religions and philosophies of life that permit or even induce people to act wickedly. We need to understand how to "operate" ourselves. Who has the operating instructions? The One who created us. All the evil and suffering return us to the fundamental question: Who is Earth's rightful ruler? The Bible tells us that we do not have the wisdom to direct ourselves, and we don't even have the right to do so. (Jeremiah 10:23,24)