"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pittens

WOW, just , wow.

Not much of an argument. The achievements of the Islamic world are largely over-estimated. The achievements of the Western world at the time of Islams golden age are largely underestimated.

(Some of this supposed anti-nationalist or anti-western bias, is in fact a protestant bias but that is a subject for another thread).

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Klaz I am not saying that we should go in all guns blazing and literally tear these cultures apart. Nowhere in post did I say that so please don't put words in my mouth.

Practices like these are fundementally wrong and I believe we have a right to object and try to put a stop to them.

I don't think I put words in your mouth. In fact, I thought it was a reasonable response to the underlined part above.

I do believe however we have a duty to protect people from practices FGM which cause only harm and have no logical reason for occuring.

Protect, how?

Do you honestly believe that if people don't want to stop cutting up little girls and causing them lifetimes of suffering that's ok? Practices like FGM have been around for centuries, maybe even millenia, they've had ample to time to change and progress but it continues today.

Well... thats ok, then. They've had hundreds of years to change their culture to suit our modern day objection to them, so they should immediately change to suit us... :rolleyes:

I agree that people have to want to change and I agree that we should let people live as they wish to an extent.

However I said before not where practices like FGM are concerned and not where lives are put at risk.

And it is that extent, that bothers me.

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think I put words in your mouth. In fact, I thought it was a reasonable response to the underlined part above.

It wasn't reasonable. I don't mean entire cultures should be done away with, only those practices which cause harm to people. Most cultures have plenty of positives that don't need to be changed or got rid of.

Protect, how?

Education would be a good start, not to suggest that some cultures aren't as intelligent as other of course. But for instance teaching people about the horrible side affects of FGM.

Well... thats ok, then. They've had hundreds of years to change their culture to suit our modern day objection to them, so they should immediately change to suit us... :rolleyes:

I was repyling to your point that people need time to change. These practices have been around so long that there has been ample time to see the wrong in them. Yet they are allowed to continue. Just because they are modern objections does not make them wrong.

And it is that extent, that bothers me.

Why?

Pittens

I agree with Klaz on not imposing modernity on anybody by force. That said:

Klaz: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - actually universal, or just an Western philosophy imposed at a time of Western Hegemony?

AudreyHepburn

Pittens wrote: »

I agree with Klaz on not imposing modernity on anybody by force.

I never mentioned anything about using force! I don't know where this is coming from!

People have rights and these need to be protected. And if this means taking steps to change and/or end practices that deny our human rights so be it.

But these steps don't need to be violent or forceful nor did I ever suggest they did.

Rev Hellfire

Pittens wrote: »

I agree with Klaz on not imposing modernity on anybody by force. That said:

Klaz: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - actually universal, or just an Western philosophy imposed at a time of Western Hegemony?

Western philosophy imposed at a time of Western Hegemony.

albeit

What is culture? Is it the need to conform to the habits/rules of the greater masses in fear of punishment or rejection? Less respect for cultures, more respect for individuals and human rights!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuchoter

I think its an all or nothing situation. You can either accept an entire culture with everything involved or say no thats not right I don't care what your culture is. I would be in the second camp. I don't care if its 'forcing modernity': burkas are wrong, so are child brides, the second class citizenship of women in several countries, black magic (ie the torture of 'witch children' in Nigeria), FGM and homophobia. There are a million other things I could add to that list. Some things are inherently right or wrong, irregardless of their context within a culture.

Ash.J.Williams

strobe wrote: »

Ok I was going to post this in After Hours....but I can imagine how that would play out (and I'm banned from there) so I think this would be the right place for the thread.

"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

I have heard people say this many times, in relation to all kinds of topics. I suppose a few obvious examples of various degree would be: Bull fighting in Spain, the religious police in Saudi Arabia, the non democratic political system in North Korea, the age of consent in Senegal, the laws regarding homosexuality in Sudan, and the more extreme examples of Sharia law around the world.

I was just curious on what other people felt about the opinion.

Do you believe some things are just universaly wrong and culture or autonomy are no excuse? Do you believe each culture or society should be free to exist however they do and people outside of that culture should not get involved? Do you think other cultures have a right or obligation to intercede in certain situations, and if so which, what are the conditions? Who decides and how is the decision of one culture over another quantified as justifiable? Where is the line drawn and can any one culture or individual objectively draw that line with any authority? If you believe it is justifiable for culture A to intercede would it not therefore to be just as justifiable for the opposing culture B to intercede in the opposite direction over the same difference?

I have my own opinions but if it's allowed I'd prefer to reserve them for a few posts to avoid influencing the initial response of others. I will give my own opinion though.

I think if a countries people are not willing to rise up and take a stand against the unjust society their rulers provide for them then it's none of our business, if they do rise up then by all means send in the armies to support them.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes it is a horrible thing to happen but what do you propose we do? This is a serious question I would like you to answer.

What about our own sexual abuse cases comitted by the church and covered up by the state and Gardaí for so long? Do you think more "advanced" countries should have invaded our country and overthrown the Government? The Vatican is still guildy in covering up child abuse, what should be done about them?

irishconvert

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I think if a countries people are not willing to rise up and take a stand against the unjust society their rulers provide for them then it's none of our business, if they do rise up then by all means send in the armies to support them.

We can't stand by, turn the head and pretend it is not happening. However I think the most we can do is boycott them, refuse to trade with them, impose sanctions, etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rev Hellfire

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I think if a countries people are not willing to rise up and take a stand against the unjust society their rulers provide for them then it's none of our business, if they do rise up then by all means send in the armies to support them.

Sometimes its only through the intervention of other nations that those oppressed can rise up. The Kurds for example could never have achieved what they have now without the direct intervention of the US.

Wibbs

Truley wrote: »

However you claim that the western world had 'better' education systems and 'better' farming techniques.

Well they pretty much did and do. One of Europes biggest advantages is that they have always been very very good at industrialisation. From way back. The history of papermaking in europe is a good one. So is movable type. Both Chinese inventions, but the europeans industrialised it in short order in a way the Chinese didnt, due to a different cultural mindset. They became very stagnant. China was essentially a medieval feudal society until the end of the 19th century.

:eek: WOW, just , wow.

Like Pittens wrote the islamic achievements have been over egged and the european achievements of the time seriously undervalued. EG when Rome(western) fell and left Britain there were no water mills. By the time of the doomsday book, there were over 5000 in southern england alone. The so called dark ages didnt last very long at all. The problem is that scholars tend to concentrate on Rome, or the rise of medieval europe and gloss over the transition point.

---

On the subject of circumcision. While male circumcision isn't quite the same as FGM in terms of pain and the long term effects they have on a person. They are similar in the sense that they are largely carried out on un consenting children, for non-medical reasons.

Agreed and most of the reasons are religious or cultural, not medical. While FGM is worse the similarities in reasons given for the practice are strong.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not what I asked you. I know you would like to use this as an opportinity to have a go at Muslims but I asked you what should our (our as in the west) response be to countries that stone children like this.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So if the cold-blooded brutal murder of a helpless child takes place in private then it is on the same level as the sexual abuse which took place in private to the hundreds of Irish children by priests?

I don't see the difference in a crime which takes place in front of the public to a crime which takes place behind closed doors, but with people in very high echelons of power turning a blind eye to it. Both societies are efficitively condoning the crime.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It wasn't reasonable. I don't mean entire cultures should be done away with, only those practices which cause harm to people. Most cultures have plenty of positives that don't need to be changed or got rid of.

And you're looking in and deciding for them. I'd prefer that they came to those conclusions themselves and decided the time had come to change them. Otherwise we're just imposing our opinions on them by force.

Education would be a good start, not to suggest that some cultures aren't as intelligent as other of course. But for instance teaching people about the horrible side affects of FGM.

I agree as long as its open education, not that twisted leading and judgmental education which various religions have used as a weapon in the past.

I was repyling to your point that people need time to change. These practices have been around so long that there has been ample time to see the wrong in them. Yet they are allowed to continue. Just because they are modern objections does not make them wrong.

You're missing the point. Your decision that such practices are wrong is a fairly recent circumstance. You've been alive how long? And how long have there been support for changes to such practices? 50 years tops?

And as for there being ample time to see the wrong in them, its only when they're compared with other practices that such "insight" can be determined. If you have only ever lived one culture, been exposed to only one culture, and believed that there was only one culture, you're not going to question things all that much. You're going to accept it as being the norm.

Why?

Because of the very things I responded to in the rest of your posts on this thread.

Pittens wrote: »

I agree with Klaz on not imposing modernity on anybody by force. That said:

Klaz: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - actually universal, or just an Western philosophy imposed at a time of Western Hegemony?

Just a western philosophy which we ourselves haven't been able to put into realistic effect in our own cultures, and yet seem to lord over countries as if we have. Its a beautiful philosophy. Seriously. But I don't believe its possible considering the stage of our social evolution and the actual desires of people.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

None. It should be a domestic response not some foreigners sticking their noses in. Until the people themselves are shocked/disgusted by such behavior its going to continue regardless of western intervention.

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

None. It should be a domestic response not some foreigners sticking their noses in. Until the people themselves are shocked/disgusted by such behavior its going to continue regardless of western intervention.

So we should just stand by and allow young girls to be killed for being raped?

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So we should just stand by and allow young girls to be killed for being raped?

We already are. :mad:

Stercus Accidit

Deleted User wrote: »

We already are. :mad:

tru dat

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

We already are. :mad:

I know we are, don't be getting angry at me.

I meant is it right that we are?

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know we are, don't be getting angry at me.

I meant is it right that we are?

I'm showing the angry sign because you're making it sound like we have a direct choice in the matter. Seriously, what do you suggest would change things? [in the amazingly quick time-frame which you seem to believe needed]

Apart from going in and taking over the country, imposing foreign laws, enforcing forcibly those laws, and basically trampling on all those peoples "rights". Which you might complain about on another thread if it did indeed happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rev Hellfire

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I must say I don't quite buy that argument, I think Irish population are/where complaisant in that they willingly turned a blind eye to what happened to these people. I certainly remember people talking of ‘funny’ priests and advice about taking candy from strangers etc, it was known about but not acknowledged.

But whether that is worse than a society openly standing up and committing these barbaric acts is debatable. What is not in dispute is that Irish society has acknowledged its demons and is moving forward.

Scanlas The 2nd

The whole problem here is that whats right and wrong doesn't really exist. It's subjective, so your never going to be able to even rationalise why your own version of morals is more accurate than someone else's.

Someone could easily argue that I'm as evil/immoral as Hitler. When I was a child I tortured bees and then killed them.

I don't see a valid argument why I'm not as immoral as Hitler. Also I eat animals that are unneccesarily butchered for my pleasure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I must say I don't quite buy that argument, I think Irish population are/where complaisant in that they willingly turned a blind eye to what happened to these people. I certainly remember people talking of ‘funny’ priests and advice about taking candy from strangers etc, it was known about but not acknowledged.

Somehow I suspect the not taking candy from strangers was more along the lines of abduction. But even if they did indeed mean child abuse, I highly doubt they had laid such to rest at the priesthood.

For all the talk about funny priests, all priests of any denomination were given a place of trust in our society. In my own family when I was a child, priests were almost like the pope coming to visit. Nothing was enough to put them at ease, make sure they were comfortable etc.

I think you're mixing up Ireland of the past and Ireland of the present. With the Internet, mobile phones, etc any bit of news can be passed on extremely quickly, and often with "facts" collaborated by official sources. I can remember my grandfather talking about when the Easter Rising occurred and how he didn't hear about it until two weeks later, and didn't have any real interest since it didn't affect him. Such a response was common right into the 70's.

But whether that is worse than a society openly standing up and committing these barbaric acts is debatable. What is not in dispute is that Irish society has acknowledged its demons and is moving forward.

Actually I dispute that. Oh we're making the right noises, and plenty of abuses are coming to light, but its still a relatively new development in our modern history. There are still plenty of demons for the Irish people to face and sort out once and for all.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella, I totally agree with you. However I asked this earlier of another poster... How do you realistically ensure that it doesn't happen in other countries?