-
Posts
-
Cultural relativism applies to a different culture, irrespective of time.
You are a cultural relativist and an ethocentrist are you not? You are advocating our values are best and we should impose our culture on the savages of New Guinea.
No I am neither.
Ethnocentricity is a word like pettybourgeois – it’s only meaningful in terms of the theoretical framework within which you’re operating.
I don’t think that I am applying the standards of my own culture to that of others, so I’m neither cultural relativist nor am I ethnocentric. I think I’m applying the standards of an ethical absolute to all cultures.
The term ethnocentric and the value of cultural relativism rest on the belief that all values and ethics are relative. I don’t think they are, and when that judgment is made, the whole edifice of your theories comes crashing down in front of your eyes, tapioca.
I’m not ethnocentric because I believe children shouldn’t have their hearts torn out, or widows burned on a funeral pyre, or gays killed. In our culture, the same things happen – we kill gays, men murder their wives, children are murdered by men to make their wives suffer. We drop bombs on other cultures, killing their wives and children. Murder and exulting in hurting people isn’t ethnocentric except in the blinkered world of cultural relativist theory.
My belief is that the children, the widows, gay people don’t accept being killed just because the customs of their society dictate it. Those customs are WRONG – not because my culture thinks they’re wrong, but because they are WRONG. Full stop. End of, to quote the immortal Claire Wales.
I do believe that if the culture of a New Guinea village demands the murder of young children or young maidens, and calls that murder a sacrifice to the gods, then it’s not just a different culture, not that we are merely applying our own standards to a culture which should be respected, but that sacrifice is a WRONG culture and has to be stopped immediately. If that involves damaging that culture, then that’s good – that culture should be damaged. not because it’s superior or inferior to our culture, but because it’s wrong.
And if our society imprisons and tortures people merely because they disagree with power, then our society and our culture is WRONG to do so.
There, ethical imperialism, in your terms, ethics in mine. Your theoretical edifice is constructed by ou – if it holds child sacrifice anywhere ot be acceptable, then it’s built on manure, and you should have the courage to stand outside your university training and recognise what’s right and what’s wrong as something common to us as humanity.
I think I’m applying the standards of an ethical absolute to all cultures.
You clearly are not, you are being ethnocentric, by wanting to impose your values over another culture’s.
I think I’m applying the standards of an ethical absolute to all cultures.
Wrong. If it was an absolute to ALL cultures, then all these cultures wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing that you consider to be wrong. You are being no more positive than the Mullah in Mecca who insists we stop drinking alcohol in UK because it’s wrong.
As I said in an earlier post, if two (or more) cultures wish to collaborate, ie, the British missionaries want to convince the Papuans to stop child sacrifice and the Papuans are up for it, I approve.
You are also digressing, The thread’s theme and culture is moving into morals and ethics. Your cultural relativism is evolving into moral relativism, maybe you think it helps you in your argumentations, but we’re back to square one really.
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
There, ethical imperialism, in your terms, ethics in mine. Your theoretical edifice is constructed by ou – if it holds child sacrifice anywhere ot be acceptable, then it’s built on manure, and you should have the courage to stand outside your university training and recognise what’s right and what’s wrong as something common to us as humanity
Of course I recognise what’s right and wrong, and so do you, but I bet we’ll both disagree, so who’s right and wrong. Then what about when we get many different opinions, we cant all be right or wrong. Of course I do not advocate child sacrifice, but if a distant culture are practicing it on the other side of the word and have always done it like that in that part of the world, I do not wish to play god with these people. It is an awful practice in mankind and will certainy die out soon, thanks to people like you
you should have the courage to stand outside your university training
You assume much
what’s right and what’s wrong as something common to us as humanity.
humanity is still too diverse to allow absolute rights and wrongs, yet.
Tapioca wrote:
You are being no more positive than the Mullah in Mecca who insists we stop drinking alcohol in UK because it’s wrong.
=============================================================
You can hardly compare the above with child sacrifice
What an evil piece of works BB is – deport millions of muslims, many of them having lived here for a long time, many of them born here. Drop them in the deseert – anywhere, really. BB doesn’t give a shyte about millions being plunged into starvation and death – they’re only Muslims after all
Whatever hyperbole helps you deflect away from your racism, but you missed out the bit of giving them an ultimatum first, and of the reasons for doing so in the first place (to eradicate Islam).
But yes I do not see why I have to consider the welfare of anyone who confesses allegiance to the thieving, lying, raping and child molesting murdering psychopath that was the Prophet Muhammad, and who reveres him as being the perfect human and the perfect role model to imitate for all of time, and who puts the demented and twisted Islamic values that were conceived by him over-and-above Western values while simultaneously trying to impart them onto everybody else – at least, not at the expense of compromising the welfare of the sane people who oppose of all of their aforementioned twattery.
ALL Muslims, not just ISIS supporters, because ISIS is Islam.
There might be hope for you yet, but probably not…
No need to interpret Islam; no need to look at the divisions in Islam. No need to think about ISIS killing all Muslims who don’t agree with them.
There is a need to interpret Islam, that’s what the Sunnah and exegeses are for.
Yet the Sunnah and all authoritative and mainstream exegeses point to Islam being a fundamentally intolerant, evil and dangerous ideology that commands for Muslims to subjugate all non-Muslims, so… you don’t have an argument there.And yes there are divisions, and ISIS do kill those who profess to be Muslims (who ISIS deem as non-Muslims for whatever reasons), but that doesn’t take away from anything that’s been said. Hatred and aggression towards non-Muslims and Western values comes as standard throughout the entirety of Islamic theology. Muslims taking issue with other Muslims does not then equate to those aggressed-upon Muslims automatically being favourable towards non-Muslims or of Western values. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend etc.
You only have to look at Islam in it’s historic context of perpetual warfare and complete disregard for the welfare of non-Muslims over hundreds of years to see the validity of this.
Anyone disagrees with BB on this? They must be traitors or Muslims. I have been called a Muslim and a racist. I am also obsessed with race and skin colour for asking to what race British Muslims belong? I am saying that a race war is likely if BB has his way, and he should remember that many white people are ready to fight him with everything they’ve got.
I’m actually probably one of the most open-minded people you could come across, I just don’t really care much for eels like you who try to use every trick of the book to vilify good people with misrepresentations and mischaracterisations as a means to disparage the decent values that they stand for–especially so when it is only they themselves who are the ones that are guilty of such falsehoods.
And yes your continual fixation on race and skin colour is highly revealing of how you predominantly judge people, which funnily enough is in line with how a typical racist would judge people too. Go figure.
But he knows that doesn’t he? I wont ask how he’ll deal with the many like me, because we all know what his answer will be. He claims he’s writing essays? Just hate-filled rants calling for deportation and death. Awa’ wi’ ye.
Nothing less than a giant catapult will suffice. Preferably pointing towards Syria – I’m sure you and you and your anti-Western misfits will like it better over there. Over the wall boyo.
Even so, a dreadful attack within the UK is accepted by the police as very likely. If it happens, then I fear for liberty in this country, as the reaction (whipped up by people who don’t believe in a liberal, tolerant society).
Lol’d. You don’t fear for liberty here Slippery Scep, because you don’t stand for it in the first place. Pretty much everything you type has a pro-Islam and anti-Western slant to it (including what I’m now replying to, lol). Stop trying to fool everyone and just be honest, it would save a lot of time. The only thing you want is Islam, in all of it’s barbaric glory, to overthrow the standing order here; and what you fear most is anything which could prevent that from happening, i.e. a justified backlash against Islam/Muslims.
ISIS would love that, as they see anti-Muslim violence as a recruiting sergeant for them – BB, please note!!
And yes ISIS probably would love it, but what they would love is irrelevant. We in the West must do what we need to do to defend ourselves and uphold our values, not cower away for fear of further aggravating those who are already hell-bent on our ruin anyway – how does that make sense? “Better not upset those who are actively working towards our demise and attacking us, just in case they get angrier and attack us more”- lol.
Most Muslims in this country seem to really dislike radical Islam…
Yes they are all great normal people just like everyone else, Islam is really a religion of peace and love, only the drug-addicted extremists are the issue, there are no problems with it all and everything is great so don’t be so xylophonic and racist and literally Hítler and such and such…
You can hardly compare the above with child sacrifice
Welcome to the wonderful world of cultural relativism, where you can justify child sacrifice and executing gay people.
This is actually something that is used by some governments (Sweden) worryingly.
That isn’t strictly true, as ISIS is very strongly in the Sunni branch of islam. I think a ‘normative’ version of islam would just be a literal interpretation of the Quran, without using the Sunnah or the Hadiths. Which is something that doesn’t exist as far as I know of.
They’re in the Sunni branch of Islam, but the Sunni branch of Islam is what 85-90% of the worlds Muslim population adheres to. So by normative Islam, I’m just meaning standard mainstream orthodox Sunni Islam which is the following of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Sunnis). The Qur’an and Sunnah is then what calls for ISIS to exist and to do what they do, or another words ISIS are just following standard mainstream Islam (Sunni). Interpreting the Qur’an on its own without the use of the Sunnah, hadith etc. is a thing and does exist – called Quranism, but those who subscribe to this are pretty much outliers to the extent of being irrelevant.
You can tollerate moderate (I don’t think a lot of people the media calles moderate actually are though) muslims without giving them a protected status. We are one of few countries that doesn’t have blasphemy laws, and should stay that way. Making practice of shariah illegal would also help, as it would encourage muslims to adopt British values instead.
I’d welcome legal changes to the effect of making the practice of shariah illegal–and was a signatory of the following petition if you or anyone else would like to add to it: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/160883 –but I just really don’t think it’s going to be effective on it’s own. Islam prescribes (as part of Jihad) for Muslims to work to take advantage of and to undermine all forms of governance, and of all values that make a free and open plural society possible, in order to further the establishment of Islam onto it. The only rules and laws that practicing Muslims will ever give a hoot about are the ones of Allah, so unless you’re putting real pressure on them to fundamentally change their entire belief system and conduct, then they will just carry on doing what they’re already doing in disregarding all Western laws and values and circumventing them (via enclaves etc), all the while continuing to freely adhere to, promote, and propagate Islamic teachings, and continuing to strive to grow Islam’s influence to the point where they’re eventually in a better position to ultimately redact those laws or replace them with their own at the state level.
The Islamic text itself is the source of all the problems, and the nature of this text is never going to change; neither then is Islam, or that of Muslims. So implementing certain relatively minor laws now as a means to stop them transgressing any further across boundaries of what’s acceptable here in the West, or in attempt to encourage them to adopt more secular values, is likely not going work. Neither too will this do anything in regards to resolving the existing social problems that are associated with Islam or Muslim communities at present, including terrorism. Things will still just get worse. It’s really just putting plasters onto a leaking dam – it will help to a degree and it’s absolutely a step in the right direction which I do support, but it’s just not enough.
For me you really need to take a tough stance and go on an all out offensive on their entire belief system to really get anywhere. A good way to visualise this is to think of a tree in your garden; you have the main trunk and the branches as the Islamic literature, the leaves which you hate and want to always get rid of representing all of the Islam-related social problems, and then poisonous fruits representing the terrorism which you also want rid of. While bearing in mind that this tree is constantly growing: rather than trying to mould it into something that it naturally isn’t, or rather than individually keep plucking off all of the leaves that you hate, or keep plucking off all of the poisonous fruits, would it not be more sensible to just cut the tree down? Go for the branches and the trunk that continuously gives rise to and supports the leaves and the poisonous fruit. That’s how you stop the leaves and the poisonous fruit that you don’t want from continuously springing up in increasingly larger quantities, and that’s also how you stop Islam. Mosques, madrassas, shariah law, shariah councils, burkas, hijabs, the quran, the ahadith etc. completely outlaw all of it, a complete and total blanket ban.
For those who love Allah and Muhammad enough to still want to get their snackbar fix, then the Islamic world with all of it’s backwardness is that way >>> and thus can feel free to go there to burn their foreheads on as many rugs in public as they wish.I don’t think that all muslims have the potential to become radicalised, certainly some of them might do in certain situations but I don’t think a reaction against every single muslim can be justified.
It depends on what you mean by radicalised. In terms of meaning it to be physical confrontation then possibly not, although that’s something in which you have to assume will be the case by default because it’s a staple part of the religious teachings to do so – especially for fighting aged men. But what might legitimately be deemed radicalism could also be expressed in more inconspicuous forms, such as helping to spread misinformation and deceit and propaganda about Islam, or donning a suit and working up through the ranks to attain whatever social power that can be used to benefit Islam and fellow Muslims (hello Sadiq Khan), or of being a woman who’s just hell-bent on pumping out 7 babies a week which aids in growing the Muslim population. These people would all typically be tagged as “moderate Muslims”who on the face of it don’t pose any threat, but yet could just as legitimately be considered as being radicalised and as much of a threat in the long-term as perhaps the more impulsive guy running at police officers with bombs strapped to his head. All of them would be aiming for the same end-goals as commanded of them by Islamic scripture, but just differing by their tactics in getting there. And on top of this you have the genuinely innocuous people who don’t really care much about their religion, but who act to unwittingly support and bolster the radicals: giving to Islamic charities that ultimately funds jihad, wearing burkas to cement Islam as a cultural norm, acting victimised and generating support from it, and if assuming genuine ignorance: acting as a smokescreen for the negative and dangerous aspects for the theology to hide behind etc etc…. perhaps even these people could be deemed radicals as well just on account of identifying as adherents of Islam alone.
This is the problem with people who profess to be followers of an ideology that is inherently radical in nature and which commands it’s adherents to completely overthrow your society, you just have no way of knowing who the ‘radicals’ are, or are able to judge how much of a threat any of them pose for simply existing, so you have to put them all into the same basket. It’s not really any different to wanting to prevent dangerous individual migrants from getting here from war-torn Islamic countries, by painting a circle around them and rejecting all of them as a whole. It’s the same kinda thing, except it’s now towards those who as equally as much of a threat as those migrants, but of whom are just already here on our doorsteps.
Although this is all a bit of a side-step anyway because the main purpose for me in treating all Muslims the same in terms of discriminating, is just to enforce the norm of the non-acceptance of Islam to exist and be practiced freely here. You fundamentally think that Islam can coexist in society in some form though and which is why you deem it not justified to treat all Muslims the same, and so…
I can see the theat that Islam poses much more than some others here do, but there are benign versions of Islam. I think thats something we can encourage (in place of conservative Islam) in this country if we can get past the media calling all critcism of Islam racist or islamophobic (a term that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood just for this purpose). Reformation of Islam will never come out of places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, even Turkey is slipping back towards fudementalism. But I thinks it’s achievable here, and with any luck it might be able to spread to other Islamic countries with time. Even if that doesn’t happen we should still try for it here.
You can, that is true. I think this is the sticking point for where we disagree though; the difference of me thinking of Islam as something that’s well-grounded and uncompromising vs you thinking of there being perhaps an ability to reform it or of there being a variety of more liberal interpretations that could prevail and hence which ought to be championed.
Focusing on Sunni Muslims in particular, are you aware that they have to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad? That he alone is the basis of pretty much everything of what’s regarded as good or bad in Islam, of what’s allowed and not allowed; that everything he liked and approved of, they too must like and approve of etc? If so then I think the point needs to be made here that all the texts of what he allegedly did and said are already well established, and have been so for hundreds of years. This too includes all main rulings that constitute shariah law, and is why that too has largely not changed for hundreds of years either. The most highly respected authoritative scholars in Islam have crossed all the t’s and crossed and all the i’s centuries ago in regard to the main theological interpretations and understandings of Islam. There’s no changing what Muhammad assumedly did, and there’s no changing the now widely accepted and highly regarded authoritative texts that references what he did, and of which now guides Muslims around the world in their understanding and practice of Islam.
Combine this with the fact that Prophet Muhammad, who is to be revered as the perfect role model, was essentially the past version of the current leader of ISIS. This then leads me to believe that there is no moderate Sunni Islam, and that there is absolutely zero chance of reforming it.
What does moderate Islam mean for you, or how would you define it?
And I get the feeling you might have heard of the Quilliam Foundation, or Nawaz Maajid maybe?
I am fully supportive of conflict with Islam, but I would choose a different battlefield than you. As I said I think that Ideological means are enough to remove radical Islam from this country (assuming that we restrict non-intergrated muslims from comming here until we have made the muslim community reject radical members on their own), and we have enough ecconomic power to place sanctions on other Islamic countries that sponser terrorism.
Yeah we want the same things I think, just a difference on how to get there. For me though, as with the above point, you seem to be taking the more softer route in assuming that we can tame Islam/Muslims, or bring about a change in some way that would allows us to coexist with Islam/Muslims until they see the light and join us hand-in-hand in our current free and secular society as equals; whereas I don’t think that’s possible, at all, and think that it needs to just be stopped outright with a lot more vigour – a lot more stick than carrot.
Christianity isn’t a lot better than Islam, but there is now a moderate form of it.
The Catholic church has never done this as well I suppose then, or there has never been some sort of inquisition (nobody would expect it) to punish people who are not ideologically pure enough.
I’m atheist, religion for me is a load of nonsense. But Christianity is absolutely miles apart from Islam.
The form of Christianity that you now think of as moderate, is simply orthodox Christianity. This is how it’s been since it’s early history, the texts have not changed for centuries. The only thing that has changed to make you think that it’s more moderate now, is the people who purport to follow it. And they’ve changed by way of becoming more pious in adhering more closely to the Christian scriptures.There have been bad things done in the name of Christ by people (or moreso civic institutions), but those who did so could not and did not justify them by invoking Christian texts and teachings, because there were and are no such texts and teachings justifying such barbaric deeds. This is key, and is what stands in sharp contrast to the Islamic jihadists who regularly invoke the Quran and Hadith to justify their actions.
I linked to this guys article in a previous post but I’m gonna bring him up again in the flesh to make a crucial point that needs to be made in regard to what we’re talking about: that the Islamic reformation is happening, but of which is why you’re now seeing so many problems.
Just over one minute:
I think any solutions lie in Secularism. First, a declared secular state, as is France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Canada, Holland, Sweden, Cuba, and many many more, approximately 120 other countries, even Turkey. Over the last 250 years, there has been a trend towards secularism, and approximately half the countries of the world are secular, most of Europe is. Apart from Greece and Denmark, we are the only European country of any note to be a country with an official state religion. This fact in itself surprises me. Great Britain by remaining a Christian land is making its own problems for itself. As a christian land we must tolerate religion. Through official secularism, we can gradually play down and remove any priveliges religion gets in society. Thus, solving many issues around religion, and multi culturalism. I also think by going secular, and disposing of our own religion, Christianity, we are not foolish enough to allow another religion to come and replace it. Hallelujah
There is a reason that we, and most of Europe, are secular in nature.
You won’t like the answer, but… it’s because of Christianity, believe it or not.Europe was born from the Roman Empire which was a Christian empire, and thus we now owe a lot to the words in the gospel of “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” which ultimately allowed for the separation of church and state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar“
http://nevo.news/index.php/2016/11/01/a-female-doctor-working-in-germany-warns-the-world/
Well they certainly aren’t intergrating in Germany are they? These men have NO intention of doing so either. As this doctor says, they actually expect everything free, and throw tantrums if they dont get their own way.
This madness is all Merkels fault. I mean…inviting the 3rd world into the west…what could possibly go wrong?
This madness is all Merkels fault. I mean…inviting the 3rd world into the west…what could possibly go wrong?
The muslim thing aside…..that comment you made is disgustingly shocking….not everyone from the third world are rapists….murderers…..thieves I know that maybe hard to believe….because there are none of those in the western world right?
Let me remind you….my ancestors are from the “third world” and I can assure you everyone I know of the same…friends and family can hold their head up high and are able to integrate into any community we so wish as decent human beings and contribute to that community in a highly positive way.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!