Quote from 2cents:
i don't want to go into "relativism" here, however a "crime" is defined as such in the context of the social norms and prevailing laws of the community that is passing judgement... where we see a crime committed in another sovereign / autonomous community that for whatever reasons does not recognize the particular act as a crime, our choice is either to take over / colonize, "educate" or engage, initiate a dialogue, apply peer pressure, depending... ...
Your disclaimer about ânot wanting to go into relativismâ indicates to me that you are aware enough and compassionate enough to intuitively sense the problem with these arguments. In fact, even though you donât want to go into it, you are going into it. The siteâs leading moral relativist, the Disgusting Troll ZZZzzzzzzz, has told us that âsocial norms and prevailing laws of the communityâ preclude our censure of what we perceive as barbaric acts. I disagree with this with every fibre of my being. Genital mutilation of young girls in Sub-Saharan Africa is now a
crime. If we cannot acknowledge this, then we throw into the toilet the entire notion of human progress. There are a class of acts which are so brutal and barbaric that to attempt a relativist interpretation is, to me, a willful turning away from the truth. Of course there will be cultural variance in the interpretation and proscription of acts. But what is murder? It is an act that has come to be universally condemned. It is true enough that the legal codification of this principle is fairly recent. I am sure that blacks were not classified as âhumansâ at some point and therefore the killing of one of them could not be legally remedied. I am sure that women were also excluded from personhood until a few hundred years ago or less. Now, though, the taking of another human life is condemned, except in cases where a country has enacted laws which provide the penalty of death if you murder someone else (an eye for an eye, and by the way, I am opposed to the death penalty for this reason, even though I think it is ludicrous for anyone to tell the parent of a child raped and murdered that they should not seek the death of the man who killed their child). The genital mutilation of children is also universally condemned.
I am not a moral relativist. I believe in human progress. I believe that human progress will be defined by the utter abolishment of the
institutionalized surgical breaking of a manâs hands for playing Beatles songs. I believe this will happen, just as it has happened that women are no longer drowned as witches (even though some far out sect might drown a woman as a witch â it is the institutionalization of this practice that is dead forever). As long as Muslims anywhere are hanging their children for flirting or breaking the hands of their musicians for playing Beatles songs, they are deserving of our moral censure.
The problem is â why is an educated society allowing such things to happen? Such barbarism as the breaking of a manâs hands because he played a Beatles tune? This is where my question about why the Jews donât do these things comes in. I use the Jews as an example because it is the Jews that the rabid anti-Semites on this site are constantly railing against. And by the way, I do believe that, unlike some of the other nutbags here, wael may not be a pure Anti-Semite, although I donât think he has any love for Jews.
Our choice is to engage, initiate a dialogue, apply peer pressure? Well, that would be fine if the people we are dealing with had not shown a tendency to start killing people when roused. Look at the Danish cartoons. People
died over that. Peer pressure? Who are the peers of the imam or the religious leaders who make these decrees? To whom do they answer? I can tell you. They answer to only one God. Dialogue? They see us as infidels. Their contempt for us and our way of life is total. Do you think they care whether we impose a trade sanction on them?
Quote from 2cents:
having said that, there's no question that intentionally maiming an innocent human being is a fucking crime... therefore countries and leaders of any feather who allow any such practices to continue under the cover of whatever shouldn't be surprised if they come under harsh criticism / attack / ban etc... and so would any supporters of those countries / leaders etc...
It would be nice if this happened, but in the case of the young Iranian man who ended up here in Canada, after his hands were broken, his family was blacklisted and their lives were ruined as well. If I am looking for a reason that there is no organized outcry from moderate Muslims re: these things, perhaps this is a clue. Western countries have condemned these acts but so what?
Quote from 2cents:
in defense of the "Arabs" though, if i may "generalize" thusly, you may want to consider that they kinda have their hands full with:
. coming out of colonization by the Old Powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Decolonization
. simultaneously dealing with 60 years of continued US/CIA organized undermining / downright overthrow of their secular and democratically-elected leaders...
Forgive me, 2c, if I donât share that sympathy with the Arab plight. There are plenty of countries that are coming out of colonial rule. They do not exhibit the same behaviours. Just ask the South Americans about the organized undermining/overthrow of their democratically elected leaders. Do we see the Nicaraguans hanging their kids for flirting? The answer would be no.
These things you mentioned donât have anything to do with what Iâm talking about. There is something else operant here. Something that I am guessing is related to Islam, and I only make this guess because I am looking for a common denominator among the groups that post internet beheadings, the groups that hang kids for flirting, the groups that break hands for playing Beatles tunes, the groups that in Canada last year constructed a wall in their house of worship behind which women would have to be hidden if they wanted to practice their religion, the groups that have told me, specifically, personally, that I am a target for them by virtue of the fact that I live in a Western country, the groups that want to live in the West but lobby to govern themselves according to their one system of laws and want us to agree not to enforce the laws of our countries when it comes to their behaviours.
It would be absurd for me to claim that Muslims have some sort of monopoly on barbarism. Obviously thatâs not true. Barbarism is a human thing, not necessarily a religious one, although nowadays, most of it seems religiously motivated whether you are looking at Iraq, India, or wherever. But what is it about Islam that breeds this kind of thing? That is my question. Why do we not see these kinds of institutionalized acts in any other modern civilized societies (the tribal genital mutilators can be excluded, donât you think?).
At any rate, I will admit that my constant request for a simple answer from wael regarding why we never see any of this from the Jews is informed to some extent by my utter contempt of and loathing for the Anti-Semitic animals on these threads. If we were to meet, I am sure you would not form the impression of me as someone who is congenitally prejudiced towards Islam or Muslims.
Anyhow, I wonât be making many long replies like this, although I will give wael a reply below.
Wael, if youâre reading this, I may have to wait until tomorrow to give you a reply.
Take care 2c.
