Page 2 of 5

Posted: 05 May 2007, 21:22
by Caydr
Cut off the foreskin, and it prevents disease, cures cancer, and makes you three feet taller. Basically. I don't know what the latest statistic on it is, but a large number of american males have it forced upon them

Something just as bad happens to girls in some countries/cultrues. To us it's disgusting and horrible, to them it's normal. To us stoning is horrible, to them it's normal. To most any reasoning person, circumcision is a violation of everything america allegedly stands for, but to them it's the norm.

Different people, different cultures. Don't judge them for what their parents told them was right and wrong, and don't assume they're Islamic (and of course TERRORISTS!!!!) because they're black. The blatant ignorance and arrogance some Americans display sometimes is just startling. Not that it's their fault, they're taught to believe they're the center of the universe and the free world in School. Hell, some of them couldn't show you where Iraq or Iran are on a map, or even Canada for that matter...

Stoning? Ha. I'll show you something genuinely terrifying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo

...these people have nukes and enough guns for every man, woman, and child.

Posted: 05 May 2007, 21:48
by Felix the Cat
See, the difference between circumcision and FGM or stoning is that circumcision doesn't have negative side effects.

FGM removes the woman's ability to derive pleasure from intercourse, out of a religious or cultural conviction that sex is exclusively for the man's pleasure.

Stoning results in the one being stoned becoming rather permanently indisposed.

Posted: 05 May 2007, 21:58
by Comp1337
Felix the Cat wrote:See, the difference between circumcision and FGM or stoning is that circumcision doesn't have negative side effects.

FGM removes the woman's ability to derive pleasure from intercourse, out of a religious or cultural conviction that sex is exclusively for the man's pleasure.

Stoning results in the one being stoned becoming rather permanently indisposed.
he spaek teh truths

Posted: 05 May 2007, 22:01
by Zoombie
I never knew that circumsicion actually effects sexual intercourse. Huh.

Posted: 05 May 2007, 22:39
by rattle
rattle wrote:different countries different customs
You can't really judge these men for what they've done and what their ancestors probably have been doing since 2000 years.


Taking the US as an example here, I'm pretty sure they (the military and government of course) have done much, much nastier things in less time and they've been doing it right under everyone's nose. Only difference is that they've got the media to make their actions look right.

Posted: 05 May 2007, 23:02
by Felix the Cat
rattle wrote:You can't really judge these men for what they've done and what their ancestors probably have been doing since 2000 years.
Yes I can. I completely can. If you participate in stoning a woman to death, you are a cretin of the lowest sort. You don't get excused because "it's your culture". If I were to "go lynch me some n****rs 'cause it's my culture", I'd be wrong regardless.

edit. Keep your moral relativism in Europe, thank you very much.

Posted: 05 May 2007, 23:50
by PicassoCT
Felix not everybody in Europe is that way. So please no prejudices, even if there are single individuals who give cause & Reason to be angry.
Human rights for the workx. Always. Everywhere. No Excuse, no hiding..

Posted: 06 May 2007, 02:39
by Lindir The Green
Felix the Cat wrote:edit. Keep your moral relativism in Europe, thank you very much.
How are we supposed to define right or wrong if not by the general consensus of those around us?

Posted: 06 May 2007, 02:41
by Peet
We do what Felix says is right, of course!

Posted: 06 May 2007, 02:56
by KingRaptor
We can accept that things like this are part of their culture, but we have no obligation to support it.

I propose we cut off all foreign aid and trade with any country which accepts/endorses such things as Sharia law, FGM, stonings, and the like.

Posted: 06 May 2007, 02:59
by Zpock
KingRaptor wrote:We can accept that things like this are part of their culture, but we have no obligation to support it.

I propose we cut off all foreign aid and trade with any country which accepts/endorses such things as Sharia law, FGM, stonings, and the like.
There goes the oil.

Posted: 06 May 2007, 03:07
by Zoombie
We don't need oil! The only people who need oil are those people who drive cars!

oh wait...

Posted: 06 May 2007, 03:12
by KingRaptor
The US has experienced an oil crisis before, in the mid-1970s. Of course, no-one's learned a thing since then. :roll:

If things get really desperate there are oil reserves in Canada (second only to Saudi Arabia) and Alaska, but we really should have moved to things like fuel cells, developed better electric cars, invested in biodiesel, hell...anything by 2000. Instead, we're still hopelessly addicted to a source of energy that should have been phased out last decade.

Posted: 06 May 2007, 03:13
by Decimator
The way I see it, there are two directions the Middle East can go. One way is the democratized nations that Bush is trying to institute. The other way is them pushing the western nations until somebody lights off a nuke.

Edit: oh, and as a ray of hope for lowering our reliance on oil: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/87 ... drcrd.html

Garbage goes in one end, electricity and hydrogen come out the other (along with some waste products that could be treated similar to raw ores.)

Posted: 06 May 2007, 03:31
by rattle
Felix the Cat wrote:
rattle wrote:You can't really judge these men for what they've done and what their ancestors probably have been doing since 2000 years.
Yes I can. I completely can. If you participate in stoning a woman to death, you are a cretin of the lowest sort. You don't get excused because "it's your culture". If I were to "go lynch me some n****rs 'cause it's my culture", I'd be wrong regardless.

edit. Keep your moral relativism in Europe, thank you very much.
So you would rather force your ideals upon these people, if you had the chance to. No I don't agree with that because it's wrong. Reminds me of the christian crusades.

I agree with sanctions or embargos for countries in which basic human rights aren't preserved.

Posted: 06 May 2007, 04:58
by Felix the Cat
Lindir The Green wrote:
Felix the Cat wrote:edit. Keep your moral relativism in Europe, thank you very much.
How are we supposed to define right or wrong if not by the general consensus of those around us?
I'll let Wikipedia explain.

Natural rights

Inalienable rights
P3374H wrote:We do what Felix says is right, of course!
I suppose this is what I get for trying to engage in actual constructive discussion.

Shall I go back to my usual antics?

Posted: 06 May 2007, 05:18
by Ishach
felix the fat

Posted: 06 May 2007, 06:04
by Felix the Cat
Ishach wrote:felix the fat
<3 isaac

Posted: 06 May 2007, 07:28
by Neddie
As much as I like the concept of natural rights, they're still subjectively defined by your culture and your society. The only difference is that you expect them to be accepted all over explicitly rather than implicitly.

Natural rights arise out of social contract, and for those outside the contract, how can you assert that they apply? As much as I wish life were that simple, it isn't.

Posted: 06 May 2007, 08:52
by SwiftSpear
I don't particularly believe in natural rights or inalienable rights. In my option the rights of individuals are subjective to sociaty and they tend to be constantly and fluidly changing. I believe that sociaty has responsibilities to protect individuals and parrallely promote abstractness and order within itself, this responsibility leads to certain quoted rights to be protected by society in the majority of situations.