A message to the world from the USA

[Merryprankster]

Hitler was asked by one of his cronies "Aren't you afraid that the 'final solution' will provoke an international outcry against you?"

His response was "Who any longer remembers the Armenians?"

And he had it dead to right, I'd say.

And Souljah--the changes in societies come about because people inside and outside keep applying pressure for change. Not because we say "Oh gee, it's a different culture, so I guess we'd better just wait around for them to stop doing horrible things."

[Souljah]

referring to those masssacres is very extreme, and though in some way related, you really compare it to the muslim situation....i think its abit ott.
-
is all I have to say about that.

And Souljah--the changes in societies come about because people inside and outside keep applying pressure for change. Not because we say "Oh gee, it's a different culture, so I guess we'd better just wait around for them to stop doing horrible things."

oh really? mp you seem to want to correct me at every instance....but before you make a comment please interpret my words properly and dont make it as if what im saying is so shallow.

[Braden]

"referring to those masssacres is very extreme, and though in some way related, you really compare it to the muslim situation....i think its abit ott."

My point, with this example and the other, was to get you first to realize that you do, in fact, believe in judging people according to your values and beliefs and forcing freedom upon them. And, secondly, to start considering what standards you're using to make the judgement.

[Sharky]

here we go again

i might go start a thread on quantum physics

[Souljah]

point taken braden, DO on the the small scale, however I feel it is completely different on this whole muslim thing.....
For me to impose my values (or anyone for that matter) on someone living in 'MY' neighbourhood and going against what I belived to be right I would most probably step in. (using the scenario you described), I'd feel it was in my power to do so in the place I live in and the way me and the people around me lived our lives - using the rules/laws WE abide by.

But imposing a morality on another nation(s) because one feels it has the power to do so I cannot agree with and I feel it is on a completely different level to the analogy, be it with a utilitarian level or imperialist intent.
I understand you pointing out that I have this principle, but I do not think it is that easy to relate.....
Though I may view it as wrong - also seeming argue FOR it, I do run the risk of sounding as if im in agreement with extreme muslim views.
But as I have repeatedly stated in my previous posts, this is not the case. I am simply trying to be reasonable and rational in my views and judgements as much as I can.

I could bring up cultural relativism, to help show that there is no 'right or wrong', but i feel this does not fully justify my arguement and will refrain. (*people sigh in relief*)

to me its religion

This brings me to my view on religion as I have never agreed with any, though I have found my sense of morality comes for them, but this cannot be helped.
I do not agree with the main principle of religion itself as I have seen no good come from it.
And I do not believe I will.
Religion continues to be the MAIN* cause of most of the violence and suffering in the world and I could never commit myself to beng involved in such a way with it.
To me it is just a means of control.

(but, again, thats just me)


*when I say main, I DID NOT SAY ALL OR ONLY (for anyone who wants to nitpick my words)


soul

[Braden]

"For me to impose my values (or anyone for that matter) on someone living in 'MY' neighbourhood and going against what I belived to be right I would most probably step in. (using the scenario you described), I'd feel it was in my power to do so in the place I live in and the way me and the people around me lived our lives - using the rules/laws WE abide by.

But imposing a morality on another nation(s) because one feels it has the power to do so I cannot agree with and I feel it is on a completely different level to the analogy, be it with a utilitarian level or imperialist intent."

So what is the principle difference in between these two situations? I'm not sure I followed, if you said...

[Souljah]

To me its not the act but the essense, or the intent that would be the difference.

to me the simple reason would be that going in and asserting dominance and 'embarrassing' a nation is different from stopping domestic violence in the case you mentioned.
I would stop the domestic violence as I said above because I saw it as wrong, to help the young girl (or whatever same scenario).

But I feel the reason the US (or UK or any of the west) would assert or impose theyre laws would be for the simple fact that they could and would trancend being a helping hand to those suffering.
I dont think it would be in the wests interest to do help other than to win over the suffering easterners, and perhaps strengthen their position.....or to just show the muslim world who really runs the show.....
(just what I think would be their motive for the act as opposed to the analogy)


soul

[Braden]

It sounds like you're saying you don't want other people to do things it's ok for you to do, since you believe yourself to be more noble than others.

[Souljah]

Do I?

[Braden]

Well... I'm looking for a clarification if you mean something quite different.

[Souljah]

I've made myself as clear as is possible on my views (when typing of course).
I know you understand what im talking about, I've seen you argue for points much more complex than this.

If you dont want to argue anymore just say, no point making these silly little comments when you really do know what I am saying.....I dont see how you could misinterpret me.....

How can you do a semi-psycho-analysis on someone over the net with just a few words to go by????

[Merryprankster]

I was simply outlining the price of indifference. I don't think the issues are simple. I don't recommend armed incursions to impose the west on other nations. And oddly enough, I don't recall mentioning Muslims or Islam. They aren't really my point, so, don't put words in my mouth in an effort to make me look like some sort of "I hate Muslims," whack job.

I believe I made my point clear. Civilized nations with an interest in furthering the human condition have an obligation to apply pressure in order to stop human rights violations. Change does NOT occur unless that pressure is applied. Social inertia is almost as powerful as the sort in classical physics.

[rogue]

Merry, Maybe those who stand by while acts of barbarism happen in other countries are just "Celebrating Diversity".

For example there's obviously nothing wrong with this.

[Souljah]

first off

Merry, I made no posts addressed to you.....I was reffering to bradens posts.

done


secondly

I believe I made my point clear. Civilized nations with an interest in furthering the human condition have an obligation to apply pressure in order to stop human rights violations. Change does NOT occur unless that pressure is applied. Social inertia is almost as powerful as the sort in classical physics.

I do agree in the main, if you had read my posts.
Similarly to what I stated as I believe pressure is already being applied to the east (perhaps not enough but its still there).
Sort of a indirect-ness through large company advertising and the like, that help brain-wash the men and women of tomorrow. And perhaps in a few generations time the extremist views will be less apparent from where we are. The change is already happening.
This is just what I believe through observation.
It is in one way a good thing for equality, but at the same time sad that nation by nation, culture will be lost.
Its happened before, It WILL happen again.

But where I draw the line is for over-applied pressure in the form of take-over, this is too much.
And as I stated before I dont believe the "Bushs' and that blairs" of this world will do so with the main aim of ending suffering.

[Braden]

Souljah -

You said clearly that the difference was that you feel your motivation is to be helpfull whereas other's motivations are to embarrass.

If you meant something else, then clarify.

Claiming anyone who disagrees with you is a liar isn't very persuasive. Neither is refusing to explain your argument on the basis that people disagreeing with you know better ones.

Yes, I can argue your position better than you have. I'm not going to make your argument for you though.