Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Hazards of Belief

1…241242244246247…334

Comments

  • #7292
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    From a quick Google search, the end of the Islamic Golden Age is largely due to the Mongol invasions of the mid-13th century, particularly the Sack of Baghdad. Baghdad used to be a great centre of learning, and it's arguably never recovered since then.

    Sure this is all true , but how is it Europe faced all the same treats , if not from the Mongols then some one else and always managed to pull through ?

    Maybe because from the same wiki page -


    There is little agreement on the precise causes of the decline, but in addition to invasion by the Mongols and crusaders, and the destruction of libraries and madrasas, there is evidence that political mismanagement and the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation) thinking played a part. The caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861) enforced a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. Science and rationalism were dismissed in favor of revelation, and Greek philosophy was condemned as anti-Islamic.[75]


  • #7293
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, not at all is a bit bald. Care to expand?
    I'm not holding forth either notion?

    It seems you just want to play Devils Advocate but never commit yourself to an opinion , good luck with that , I'm not interested in a one sided conversation .


  • #7294
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    of course you are.
    If you had a better argument than 'of course' to present I'm fairly sure you would...
    silverharp wrote: »
    As for judging societies im not interested in where particular societies are on a development scale but moreso obvious failures in a society which holds that society back.
    What you're interested in is probably something I don't want to inquire into too deeply, I'm more concerned with your statements deriding other cultures as inferior simply because they don't align with your cultural values.
    silverharp wrote: »
    NK for instance is a closed society, people arent allowed to travel or have free access to information from abroad, in terms of how societies work and develop this is an objective failure. I suppose you will say that I am based against closed societies :pac:
    Objectively, how is it a failure? As a culture it appears to be flourishing according to it's own standards, and you haven't given any reason to hold whatever standards your'e applying as objective measurements of the success or failure of a culture (other than the notion that these standards are fulfilled by your 'superior' culture. What if the objective standard of success for a culture was it's facility to successfully withstand the influence of other cultures and remain true to itself? North Korea would the No 1 superior culture in the world; western culture would be bottom of the list because it's always being influenced by all sorts.


  • #7295
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    It seems you just want to play Devils Advocate but never commit yourself to an opinion , good luck with that , I'm not interested in a one sided conversation .
    And it seems you want to dismiss arguments without having to provide a justification :)

    Anyways, I think I've put forth my opinions fairly clearly; that they're not opinions to do with the discussion you want to have is mostly because it's not a discussion I have any interest in. The topic you want to discuss is probably better suited to the History & Heritage forum; I'm more interested in the particular hazard of belief in Denmark that we've been talking about.


  • #7296
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    And it seems you want to dismiss arguments without having to provide a justification :)

    Anyways, I think I've put forth my opinions fairly clearly; that they're not opinions to do with the discussion you want to have is mostly because it's not a discussion I have any interest in. The topic you want to discuss is probably better suited to the History & Heritage forum; I'm more interested in the particular hazard of belief in Denmark that we've been talking about.


    No you have put forth your disagreements (usually Jesuitical at that )with others opinions , but never an opinion of your own . But you seem to be most comfortable sitting on the fence all the time so I will leave you at it .


  • Advertisement
  • #7297
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    No you have put forth your disagreements (usually Jesuitical at that )with others opinions , but never an opinion of your own . But you seem to be most comfortable sitting on the fence all the time so I will leave you at it .
    I think I've been quite clear it's my opinion that I'm wary of what is happening in Denmark, and that our cultural perspective is an unusual one. I do recall expressing the opinion that whether we accept a persons consent as valid for whatever purpose is a matter for society, western society differs from middle eastern society on this particular issue but neither can, I think, be objectively held as an absolutely correct position. I'm quite certain I gave the opinion that the law of the land does not require those refugee couples to be separated, yet that is what the Danish Integration Minister is doing. And the opinion that refugee women should have a choice whether or not to be separated from their husbands; neither their husbands not the Danish Minister for Integration should be making that choice for them. . I clearly gave my opinion that we should be considering Denmarks actions objectively, so as not to allow our cultural bias interfere with respectful treatment of refugees. I gave my opinion that we were talking about children according to our own cultural standard; adults by others, and biologically sexually mature, and that the categorisation is subjective.

    I offered a few more opinions over the following four pages too, but if you think I was 'fence sitting' I can barely imagine how violently aggressive you must think an argument has to be in order to be considered choosing a side to come down on.

    Or are you just miffed I didn't take an interest in your own pet historical debate?


  • #7298
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    ^^^

    Liking the above as much for the effort it must have taken to put it together as anything else... :)


  • #7299
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,553 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think I've been quite clear it's my opinion that I'm wary of what is happening in Denmark, and that our cultural perspective is an unusual one. I do recall expressing the opinion that whether we accept a persons consent as valid for whatever purpose is a matter for society, western society differs from middle eastern society on this particular issue but neither can, I think, be objectively held as an absolutely correct position. I'm quite certain I gave the opinion that the law of the land does not require those refugee couples to be separated, yet that is what the Danish Integration Minister is doing. And the opinion that refugee women should have a choice whether or not to be separated from their husbands; neither their husbands not the Danish Minister for Integration should be making that choice for them. . I clearly gave my opinion that we should be considering Denmarks actions objectively, so as not to allow our cultural bias interfere with respectful treatment of refugees. I gave my opinion that we were talking about children according to our own cultural standard; adults by others, and biologically sexually mature, and that the categorisation is subjective.

    I offered a few more opinions over the following four pages too, but if you think I was 'fence sitting' I can barely imagine how violently aggressive you must think an argument has to be in order to be considered choosing a side to come down on.

    Or are you just miffed I didn't take an interest in your own pet historical debate?

    We can take it then, in the interests of 'respectful treatment of refugees' that refugees coming to Ireland should be able to bring with them their culture of child marriage, of FGM, of abortion if they come from a country where it is culturally acceptable, of honour killings, of setting up local courts which can sentence apostates, homosexuals and adulterers to death, order beatings, and so on through all the variations of customs throughout the world that Western countries do not practise or recognise?

    Or are you saying that it should just be allowed to continue if it has already happened? So that anyone could, if they can claim it is their custom, go to another country and marry a child bride and bring them back? How do you establish that it is their custom and they are not just being a pedophile? How do you recognise marriage? Would there have to be papers issued by a civil authority, or can people say 'it is my custom to pay a father for his daughter, then we are married' - it probably is a custom somewhere. What happens when they cease to be refugees and become citizens, does the alternative system continue, or do they have to live by the law of the land?


  • #7300
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    If you had a better argument than 'of course' to present I'm fairly sure you would...

    You strawmanned my position by implying my position is that difference sets up an automatic superiority judgement. the logical assumption one can make is that is something is inferior it must be different but not the reverse

    Absolam wrote: »
    What you're interested in is probably something I don't want to inquire into too deeply, I'm more concerned with your statements deriding other cultures as inferior simply because they don't align with your cultural values.

    see above re strawmanning
    Absolam wrote: »
    Objectively, how is it a failure? As a culture it appears to be flourishing according to it's own standards, and you haven't given any reason to hold whatever standards your'e applying as objective measurements of the success or failure of a culture (other than the notion that these standards are fulfilled by your 'superior' culture. What if the objective standard of success for a culture was it's facility to successfully withstand the influence of other cultures and remain true to itself? North Korea would the No 1 superior culture in the world; western culture would be bottom of the list because it's always being influenced by all sorts.

    being stubborn is only a useful trait if what you are protecting is good to begin with. Objectively by any measure of population welfare, NK doesnt work relative to South Korea. Infant mortality is 6 times higher, life expectency is 10 years shorter, it spends a quarter of its budget on defense compare to 3% in SK. SO I can conclude that by being a closed society and a dictatorship (for no good reason) that the country is an ideological failure

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2013/apr/08/south-korea-v-north-korea-compared



    is your position that it is objectively impossible to rate a system of ideas? so theoretically if we had 3 countries and they were roughly the same on every measure except country A adds Lead to its water supply because of a religious rule from the iron age where the prophet deemed it to be spiritually important to add Lead whereas country B adds Flouride based on scientific data and country C doesnt add anything. In such a theoretical case cant we at least say that it is True that Country A is wrong because its values are wrong. If you accept this, then we have a principle of significant harm to judge

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #7301
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,448 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    looksee wrote: »
    We can take it then, in the interests of 'respectful treatment of refugees' that refugees coming to Ireland should be able to bring with them their culture of child marriage, of FGM, of abortion if they come from a country where it is culturally acceptable, of honour killings, of setting up local courts which can sentence apostates, homosexuals and adulterers to death, order beatings, and so on through all the variations of customs throughout the world that Western countries do not practise or recognise?

    Or are you saying that it should just be allowed to continue if it has already happened? So that anyone should, if they can claim it is their custom, go to another country and marry a child bride and bring them back? How do you establish that it is their custom and they are not just being a pedophile? How do you recognise marriage? Would there have to be papers issued by a civil authority, or can people say 'it is my custom to pay a father for his daughter, then we are married' - it probably is a custom somewhere. What happens when they cease to be refugees and become citizens, does the alternative system continue, or do they have to live by the law of the land?

    There are societies (Tadjikistan/Mongolia iirc) where it is the custom for young men to organize raiding parties on horseback to steal wives (I saw it on TV so it must be true :)). This is still the tradition even when the couple have agreed to marry but kidnapping of girls unfortunate enough to be noticed by someone can also occur. Once the woman has had sex (including rape) she has no option but to marry the man of course. The family's honour and all that. :mad:

    Presumably a child who has been brought up to believe this sort of "honour" stuff is going to believe that such a man is her husband and that it would be wrong to leave him.

    Would it really be arrogant ethnocentrism to say that a 14 or even 16 year old girl pregnant by such a man turning up in Europe as an asylum seeker also requires asylum on an individual level from such barbaric customs? And that the brainwashing she has undergone to accept such a "marriage" is not "just" a different culture from ours, but is an absolute evil?

    If that's ethnocentrism, hell, yeah, sign me up for it now.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Advertisement
  • #7302
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think I've been quite clear it's my opinion that I'm wary of what is happening in Denmark, and that our cultural perspective is an unusual one. I do recall expressing the opinion that whether we accept a persons consent as valid for whatever purpose is a matter for society, western society differs from middle eastern society on this particular issue but neither can, I think, be objectively held as an absolutely correct position. I'm quite certain I gave the opinion that the law of the land does not require those refugee couples to be separated, yet that is what the Danish Integration Minister is doing. And the opinion that refugee women should have a choice whether or not to be separated from their husbands; neither their husbands not the Danish Minister for Integration should be making that choice for them. . I clearly gave my opinion that we should be considering Denmarks actions objectively, so as not to allow our cultural bias interfere with respectful treatment of refugees. I gave my opinion that we were talking about children according to our own cultural standard; adults by others, and biologically sexually mature, and that the categorisation is subjective.

    I offered a few more opinions over the following four pages too, but if you think I was 'fence sitting' I can barely imagine how violently aggressive you must think an argument has to be in order to be considered choosing a side to come down on.

    Or are you just miffed I didn't take an interest in your own pet historical debate?

    Yeah yeah. consider them opinions if you wish , to me they are just wishy washy cultural studies official-speak .

    Some questions require a definitive yes or no answer and having ascertained that answer then we discuss the best measures taking account of that answer .

    And they are the issues such as FGM ,child marriages , honour killings etc .

    It is as simple as that.


  • #7303
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    looksee wrote: »
    We can take it then, in the interests of 'respectful treatment of refugees' that refugees coming to Ireland should be able to bring with them their culture of child marriage, of FGM, of abortion if they come from a country where it is culturally acceptable, of honour killings, of setting up local courts which can sentence apostates, homosexuals and adulterers to death, order beatings, and so on through all the variations of customs throughout the world that Western countries do not practise or recognise?
    Sure, they can bring their culture with them, after all, I clearly said if they say they do want or choose to be in Denmark (or in your example, Ireland), they'll have to assimilate like every other migrant does in a new country. And lest one were to be confused about what assimilation might entail, I pointed out (to you actually) that if they break the law they should be treated like other law breakers. If you think I might be conflicted about whether their culture might in some way take precedence over the law, I also said (again, to you, as it turns out) that I haven't argued that they shouldn't live by the laws of the country they're in. So yes, they should certainly bring their culture, the bits we like and the bits we don't; they still have to abide by the law of the country they're in. Maybe we'll change them a bit, and maybe they'll change us a bit. I don't have a problem with that either.
    looksee wrote: »
    Or are you saying that it should just be allowed to continue if it has already happened? So that anyone should, if they can claim it is their custom, go to another country and marry a child bride and bring them back? How do you establish that it is their custom and they are not just being a pedophile? How do you recognise marriage? Would there have to be papers issued by a civil authority, or can people say 'it is my custom to pay a father for his daughter, then we are married' - it probably is a custom somewhere. What happens when they cease to be refugees and become citizens, does the alternative system continue, or do they have to live by the law of the land?
    Well, as you can see from my reply, I don't think it's an either/or. I'm sure I posted about how a country like Denmark ought to treat a child bride coming from another country, do you need me to quote that as well? I'd think the same for Ireland.


  • #7304
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    You strawmanned my position by implying my position is that difference sets up an automatic superiority judgement. the logical assumption one can make is that is something is inferior it must be different but not the reverse
    I'm not sure you're quite getting the concept of strawmanning; I haven't changed anything in the argument you offered.
    You said "I can dismiss certain values or systems because they fall so far below the standards we set for ourselves." I'm not changing what you said; the standards we set for ourselves are different to the standards they set for themselves. Judging them by your own standards is judging them based on their difference; your standards aren't relevant to them.
    silverharp wrote: »
    see above re strawmanning
    Ditto.
    silverharp wrote: »
    being stubborn is only a useful trait if what you are protecting is good to begin with. Objectively by any measure of population welfare, NK doesnt work relative to South Korea. Infant mortality is 6 times higher, life expectency is 10 years shorter, it spends a quarter of its budget on defense compare to 3% in SK. SO I can conclude that by being a closed society and a dictatorship (for no good reason) that the country is an ideological failure
    Is being stubborn one of your standards?
    And yet North Korea themselves claim they are an ideological triumph; their current leader has advanced science and culture by leaps and bounds unimaginable to the West. It certainly appears you're working to different standards here; and I'm not sure lots of people will agree with you that defense spending and openness of a country are good measures (or even measures) of a culture. Wasn't it all art and philosophy and science and suchlike from someone a while ago? Someone is going to have to come up with some objective standards if we're going to figure out who's really inferior....
    silverharp wrote: »
    is your position that it is objectively impossible to rate a system of ideas? so theoretically if we had 3 countries and they were roughly the same on every measure except country A adds Lead to its water supply because of a religious rule from the iron age where the prophet deemed it to be spiritually important to add Lead whereas country B adds Flouride based on scientific data and country C doesnt add anything. In such a theoretical case cant we at least say that it is True that Country A is wrong because its values are wrong. If you accept this, then we have a principle of significant harm to judge
    Nope, my position is that the direct comparison of one culture to another via the mores of only of the cultures is a flawed proposition; every culture finds itself to be superior to every other culture. When you present your moral judgement which applies what appear to you to be self evident truths and rules, you're simply ignoring the fact that these are not objective 'truths' and if not shared by someone from another culture don't make either the person or the culture inferior simply by virtue of their absence.


  • #7305
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah yeah. consider them opinions if you wish , to me they are just wishy washy cultural studies official-speak .
    Ah well, if you're going to tell me my opinions are only opinions when you say they are, you could have led with that and I wouldn't have made so much effort. I am fascinated though... what exactly is wishy washy cultural studies official-speak? And how is it different to an opinion?
    marienbad wrote: »
    Some questions require a definitive yes or no answer and having ascertained that answer then we discuss the best measures taking account of that answer . And they are the issues such as FGM ,child marriages , honour killings etc . It is as simple as that.
    Wow. It's amazing how you never managed to bring up questions about those in your previous eighteen posts. Have you suddenly discovered the Golden Age of Islam and the Mongol Hordes aren't as interesting as you thought they were? Is it really as simple as that?


  • #7306
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    There are societies <...> sign me up for it now.
    I think once you have both presumption and presumption of brainwashing as the basis for your argument, you probably don't have an argument to be honest.


  • #7307
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm not sure you're quite getting the concept of strawmanning;
     I haven't changed anything in the argument you offered.
    You said "I can dismiss certain values or systems because they fall so far below the standards we set for ourselves." I'm not changing what you said; the standards we set for ourselves are different to the standards they set for themselves. Judging them by your own standards is judging them based on their difference; your standards aren't relevant to them.
    Ditto.
    Is being stubborn one of your standards?
    And yet North Korea themselves claim they are an ideological triumph; their current leader has advanced science and culture by leaps and bounds unimaginable to the West. It certainly appears you're working to different standards here; and I'm not sure lots of people will agree with you that defense spending and openness of a country are good measures (or even measures) of a culture.

    Nope, my position is that the direct comparison of one culture to another via the mores of only of the cultures is a flawed proposition; every culture finds itself to be superior to every other culture. When you present your moral judgement which applies what appear to you to be self evident truths and rules, you're simply ignoring the fact that these are not objective 'truths' and if not shared by someone from another culture don't make either the person or the culture inferior simply by virtue of their absence.

    I don't understand your response regarding NK. Surely what a culture says about itself shouldn't be taken at face value. If NK think they are the best thing since sliced bread but they can't even keep utilities working and can't keep its people alive relative to its neighbours then objectively its failing because of worse ideas than its neighbours.
    But there are objective truths based on scientific evidence for instance And there are moral truths for instance that concentration camps are immoral or actual slavery the same. And again you are twisting and talking about something being superior to every other culture , when more often than not it would be most cultures having a problem with a particular culture or cultural practice. For instance with having sex with children most countries would agree that this is a bad thing, the fact that a few countries are beholden to hard coded religious views which permit it puts a huge onus on the few to defend their position which they can't without reverting to circular logic from their religious books which nobody else would take seriously.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #7308
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    I don't understand your response regarding NK. Surely what a culture says about itself shouldn't be taken at face value. If NK think they are the best thing since sliced bread but they can't even keep utilities working and can't keep its people alive relative to its neighbours then objectively its failing because of worse ideas than its neighbours.
    And that would be my point; you're taking your cultures values as being self evident, but dispute those of other cultures. What your culture says about itself is naturally biased, and is not a standard to hold other cultures up against. Not for North Koreans, and not for Europeans.
    silverharp wrote: »
    But there are objective truths based on scientific evidence for instance And there are moral truths for instance that concentration camps are immoral or actual slavery the same.
    What you are calling objective truths based on scientific evidence I would call facts. It is a fact that North Korea has a higher infant mortality rate than South Korea. That fact doesn't make North Koreas culture objectively inferior to South Koreas culture. Moral truths on the other hand, are subjective entirely, and don't even apply to cultures, but to individuals; hence the fact that in Western culture people hold it to be morally true that a child should not be killed in the womb, and hold it to be morally true that a woman has a right to bodily integrity which permits her to kill the child in her womb. And of course, Westerners long held slavery to be entirely moral, and some Westerners clearly felt concentration camps were a moral solution to a problem.
    silverharp wrote: »
    And again you are twisting and talking about something being superior to every other culture , when more often than not it would be most cultures having a problem with a particular culture or cultural practice. For instance with having sex with children most countries would agree that this is a bad thing, the fact that a few countries are beholden to hard coded religious views which permit it puts a huge onus on the few to defend their position which they can't without reverting to circular logic from their religious books which nobody else would take seriously.
    I'm not twisting (even without your insertion of 'every'), these are your posts:
    Silverharp wrote:
    western values are superior
    silverharp wrote: »
    Western society will have to deal with their dysfunctional offspring.
    silverharp wrote: »
    A critical mass of people who are incompatible with the west is a bad thing
    silverharp wrote: »
    this Islamic value is inferior
    silverharp wrote: »
    its obvious that some values are inferior to others .


  • #7309
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    No mainstream media coverage at all.
    https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=circumcision+new+york&tbm=nws

    Absolutely ridiculous, one rule for "religious minorities", another for the normies.

    http://unitedhumanists.com/2016/02/22/two-more-babies-get-herpes-after-ritual-ultra-orthodox-jewish-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-in-new-york-city/

    "Two more new born have been infected with herpes virus in the last three months after undergoing a controversial religious oral circumcision in New York City.

    These latest cases bring the total count to 13 infants since 2000, two of which suffered brain damage and two died from the virus which can rapidly spread throughout its body.

    The ultra Orthodox Jewish ritual of metzitzah b’peh requires a practitioner to orally suck the penis of baby to ‘cleanse’ the open wound following its circumcision, making them vulnerable to the virus.    "

    "‘The reason is that the baby doesn’t have the same fully developed immune system as an adult. Instead of staying in the genital area, it extends throughout different organs in the body,’ he explained.

    He said it’s too soon to tell whether the boys will suffer permanent effects.

    The identify of the rabbi who performed the circumcision is being withheld by the boys’ parents, preventing the health department to step in, they said    ."


  • #7310
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    North Korea has a culture?


  • #7311
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    Ah well, if you're going to tell me my opinions are only opinions when you say they are, you could have led with that and I wouldn't have made so much effort. I am fascinated though... what exactly is wishy washy cultural studies official-speak? And how is it different to an opinion?

    Wow. It's amazing how you never managed to bring up questions about those in your previous eighteen posts. Have you suddenly discovered the Golden Age of Islam and the Mongol Hordes aren't as interesting as you thought they were? Is it really as simple as that?

    Still more non committal bumptiousness , with your methodology you can defend ISIS just as easily .

    Some issues really are black and white .


  • Advertisement
  • #7312
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »

    These latest cases bring the total count to 13 infants since 2000, two of which suffered brain damage and two died from the virus which can rapidly spread throughout its body.

    The ultra Orthodox Jewish ritual of metzitzah b’peh requires a practitioner to orally suck the penis of baby to ‘cleanse’ the open wound following its circumcision, making them vulnerable to the virus.    "
    meh....they are orthodox jews, so its OK. The direct comparison of one culture to another via the mores of only of the cultures is a flawed proposition; every culture finds itself to be superior to every other culture. When you present your moral judgement which applies what appear to you to be self evident truths and rules, you're simply ignoring the fact that these are not objective 'truths' and if not shared by someone from another culture don't make either the person or the culture inferior simply by virtue of their absence.


  • #7313
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    marienbad wrote: »
    with your methodology you can defend ISIS just as easily .
    meh... beheading the infidel is part of their heritage. The direct comparison of one culture to another via the mores of only of the cultures is a flawed proposition; every culture finds itself to be superior to every other culture. When you present your moral judgement which applies what appear to you to be self evident truths and rules, you're simply ignoring the fact that these are not objective 'truths' and if not shared by someone from another culture don't make either the person or the culture inferior simply by virtue of their absence.


  • #7314
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    recedite wrote: »
    meh... beheading the infidel is part of their heritage. The direct comparison of one culture to another via the mores of only of the cultures is a flawed proposition; every culture finds itself to be superior to every other culture. When you present your moral judgement which applies what appear to you to be self evident truths and rules, you're simply ignoring the fact that these are not objective 'truths' and if not shared by someone from another culture don't make either the person or the culture inferior simply by virtue of their absence.

    Never said they were inferior or superior , their values are simply not my values .


  • #7315
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,553 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    No mainstream media coverage at all.
    https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=circumcision+new+york&tbm=nws

    Absolutely ridiculous, one rule for "religious minorities", another for the normies.

    http://unitedhumanists.com/2016/02/22/two-more-babies-get-herpes-after-ritual-ultra-orthodox-jewish-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-in-new-york-city/

    "Two more new born have been infected with herpes virus in the last three months after undergoing a controversial religious oral circumcision in New York City.

    These latest cases bring the total count to 13 infants since 2000, two of which suffered brain damage and two died from the virus which can rapidly spread throughout its body.

    The ultra Orthodox Jewish ritual of metzitzah b’peh requires a practitioner to orally suck the penis of baby to ‘cleanse’ the open wound following its circumcision, making them vulnerable to the virus.    "

    "‘The reason is that the baby doesn’t have the same fully developed immune system as an adult. Instead of staying in the genital area, it extends throughout different organs in the body,’ he explained.

    He said it’s too soon to tell whether the boys will suffer permanent effects.

    The identify of the rabbi who performed the circumcision is being withheld by the boys’ parents, preventing the health department to step in, they said    ."

    They should be looking for a Rabbi with a cold sore, or who has cold sores sometimes. No-one should ever go near a new born baby if they have a cold sore.


  • #7316
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    pauldla wrote: »
    North Korea has a culture?
    Yes, and a strong one too - authoritarian, totalitarian, totemic and distinctly Orwellian with more than a passing resemblance to the fundamentalist christianity with which The Dear Leader is said to have been raised.


  • #7317
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,553 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Didn't we have the objective truths v. facts discussion before somewhere? I know it was long and tedious but maybe it wasn't Absolem, I can't recall.


  • #7318
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    pauldla wrote: »
    North Korea has a culture?
    No idea tbh. If they do I imagine they've pointed out theirs is superior to someone elses at some point, so they've something in common with posters on the thread. Which is nice.


  • #7319
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    Still more non committal bumptiousness , with your methodology you can defend ISIS just as easily . Some issues really are black and white .
    Wishy washy cultural studies official-speak and non committal bumptiousness, oh my! You must have really thought you were going to pwn that historical discussion, eh?


  • #7320
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    Wishy washy cultural studies official-speak and non committal bumptiousness, oh my! You must have really thought you were going to pwn that historical discussion, eh?

    Really easy to win a historical discussion when all one has to contend with is non committal bumptiousness . eh ?


  • Advertisement
  • #7321
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    Really easy to win a historical discussion when all one has to contend with is non committal bumptiousness . eh ?
    Someone actually engaged in your discussion? You must be happy out so :D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement