so what underlies an otherwise intelligent religious person to resist evolution?
we need to confront the real underlying psychological issue here: faith in humanity
religious folk view something like evolution as a path to meaninglessness, nihilism, cynicism. your typical secular humanist expresses their faith in mankind directly: there is no conflict between evolution and being positive about mankind's future
but religious folk's minds don't work like that. for a religious person, their faith in humanity is indirect. it is tied up in symbols and code words, like god. god is really just a psychological manifestation of an abstract concept: an ideal man, what humanity strives for, progress
and around an idea like god, you get all of these related mythologies that again, are really just props for retaining and reaffirming and indirect positivistic faith in society and mankind
so what really divides the secular humanists and the religious folk are those with no faith in mankind. when you look at something like evolution, and you consider your traditional religious symbology that enforces your faith, you are confronted with a crisis. and you look at some of the nihilism in the world. not the atheists who believe in mankind, but the cynical, empty, boorish loud kind of atheist who sees no meaning in life, and you react to that. and so you react to evolution: it seems to be a path to this sort of empty faithless indolent nihilism
in other words, the negative reaction to evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk is really a reaction against the idea of meaningless in life
this is the psychological issue which underlies the rejection of evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk. and so the real way you defeat their resistance is by criticizing faithless nihilism. those who use evolution as a story about how mankind is meaningless, pointless: you attack and reject them
you talk about evolution, AND you talk about faith in humanity and you talk about evolution as reinforcing meaning, not destroying it. and in such a way, you draw down the resistance of intelligent religious folks to evolution, by demonstrating to them that evolution is not a threat to the idea of faith, that plenty of secular humanists with faith in mankind can also beleive in evolution, without some sort of psychological dissonance
1. bunch of techs in a room couldn't agree. they didn't agree to disagree, they just couldn't agree. subtle but very important difference
2. something had to be decided. again, subtle but important: life goes on, whether you agree what to do or not. getting lost in the minutiae of getting all the tiny quibbling details perfect is oftentimes less important than moving forward with something, anything
3. the non techie guy got fed up, and made things move forward: he forced a decision
that really seems to be about what happened here. and that really seems to be about the best anyone could do in this situation
the problem is the issue of open-ended versus closed systems. a techie tries to get the system closed and distill a perfect solution. but real life dictates that some things, especially a standard as complex as this, have a few grey area points no one can agree upon
then it becomes less important to get that grey area right, and more important to move forward. this drives perfectionist nuts. but if perfectionists ran the world, nothing would ever get done. there would just be endless meetings like the one described here
the bureaucrat killed the endless minutiae. the bureacrat did the right thing. the techies in the room fail to understand life is not about an endless meeting on minutiae
the answer is cooperation with china on the question of taiwan or opposition to china on the question of taiwan. that's the "gun to the head" you speak of and are looking for
you simply say to the chinese: treat tibet like you do macau and hong kong, "one country, two systems", and we will allow you to absorb taiwan in the same manner. treat tibet like you did democracy protestors in 1989, and we will ship aegis anti-cruise missile technology to taiwan and station troops there and sign a defense treaty with taipei... or something like that: we will help taiwan militarily if tibet is treated like shit, and that makes sense, because if china gets away with treating tibet like shit unopposed, then the ultranational hawks in beijing will reap political windfalls and will begin to cast their eyes elsewhere for hard line tactics
btw, war between the usa and china will devastate the philippines. war between japan and the usa devastated the philippines in the 1940s for the same reason: the philippines is the "land in between" the two powers and so it is where the conflict will naturally gravitate too
so it is in the interest of every filipino that china and the west remain at peace
i think real peace in tibet comes when the han colonists stop treating the tibetans so badly. perhaps even back out of tibet. or, barring that, stop being allowed a two-tiered class system where the han get jobs, and tibetans get kicked to the roadside. appeasment of the tibetans will of course also include a large amount of self-rule, return of the dalai lama. but apart from outright independence, if china were to allow tibet more internal autonomy, this might even pave the way for china to prove to the world that the absorption of taiwan would proceed smoothly too
but when the wider world watches how han imperialism crushes tibetan basic rights, in their own damn country/ province, one thinks nothing but that china does not deserve to get its hands on taiwan
think about it. making the tibetans happy is the path to china peacefully reuniting with taiwan
outright xenophobic ultranationalism and han imperialism and treating tibetans like dirt means the wider world defying taiwanese reunion
nationalism is ugliness, and self-defeating. even when the chinese do it. the chinese must learn this, and they will, the hard way, or the easy way. not because the west has anything to teach the chinese, but simply that blind pride and hubris is self-defeating
"Fine, but the Chinese DO NOT CARE about your appeals to conscience"
and you haven't figured out what to do yet
"No. I believe that we can find some magic set of ACTIONS that will make China realize continued oppression of Tibet is not in its self-interest. I haven't figured out yet what it is"
eventually, you will arrive at what i already said to you:
all you ever can do is appeal to someone's conscience. this is the basis for all morality
when you are a position of power, you are blamed for everything
china will surpass the usa as world power in the next few years, if it hasn't done so already
as such, the chinese need to develop some thicker skin
because if you think that poem sums up the worst of the hypocritical complaints you get from the world, just you wait, it gets ten times worse
you don't get to be powerful in this world and everyone loves you
no one, NO ONE, who has ever ruled, was also loved
china is coming to rule. so china will come to be hated. this is utterly and completely unavoidable, no matter what china does
you think anti-americanism is unique to american actions? ha! just wait and see china, you will see nothing but criticism. and it is completely unavoidable. it is a simple byproduct of china growing stronger and basic human nature when it comes to power dynamics
china: grow some thicker skin. criticism is soon all you will know
but it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the TIBETAN protestors, which, here in midtown manhattan near the UN, i've been seeing almost daily for the last few weeks
in other words, its one thing for you to dispute the words of idiotic westerners, which i agree with you about. but one would be really interested to hear in what way you dismiss the concerns of tibetans themselves
i think real peace in tibet comes when the han colonists stop treating the tibetans so badly. perhaps even back out of tibet. or, barring that, stop being allowed a two-tiered class system where the han get jobs, and tibetans get kicked to the roadside. appeasment of the tibetans will of course also include a large amount of self-rule, return of the dalai lama. but apart from outright independence, if china were to allow tibet more internal autonomy, this might even pave the way for china to prove to the world that the absorption of taiwan would proceed smoothly too
but when the wider world watches how han imperialism crushes tibetan basic rights, in their own damn country/ province, one thinks nothing but that china does not deserve to get its hands on taiwan
think about it. making the tibetans happy is the path to china peacefully reuniting with taiwan
outright xenophobic ultranationalism and han imperialism and treating tibetans like dirt means the wider world defying taiwanese reunion
nationalism is ugliness, and self-defeating. even when the chinese do it. the chinese must learn this, and they will, the hard way, or the easy way. not because the west has anything to teach the chinese, but simply that blind pride and hubris is self-defeating
the point is, han imperialism is the real problem, western idiots are the sideshow. not visa versa. western hippies do not create han imperialists. han imperialists inflame western hippies. you have your cause and effect backwards. and therefore, if you understood the real cause and effect you would be focusing most of your criticism at han imperialism, not western idiots
or continue your chinese nationalist pride, and justify to yourself why it is ok to think the tibetans have no validity to their complaints
all of your wonderful historical narrative means nothing, and you admit as much at the end: "Still, that's a Chinese problem, but the invasion and attempted cultural genocide of Tibet is something else entirely."
you hold people to a simple universal code of human conduct. no, it is not complicated. if its a simple code of human conduct, it is something universally appreciated by 99% of everyone on the planet. if what were happening in tibet were happening in africa, the chinese would condemn it
the chinese are clearly doing wrong in tibet. your historical narrative helps EXPLAIN what they are doing but it does not EXCUSE what they are doing, so it doesn't change any moral outrage, any sense of right and wrong, any need to condemn what deserves to be condemned
its not like you can study chinese history for 10 years, thereby arriving at some magic set of well-phrased words and at the end of which, the chinese go "oh yeah, that's wrong, we'll stop". its not about cultural understanding leads to a better outcome here
no: bad behavior is bad behavior is bad behavior. absolutely amount of cultural understanding changes that. you condemn bad behavior. any cultural or historical tweaks are bullshit
that's the only thing you ever could do, or ever can do
its not some sort of weird game to figure out what motivates people. that's easy: self-interest is what motivates people. duh
you believe that if you study chinese culture and chinese point of view for 10 years you will arrive at some magic set of words that if you say to the chinese they will suddenly go "oh yeah, this is wrong, we'll stop it"
dude: you chastise someone when they do something wrong. thats the beginning and the ending of this complex thing called morality. anything else is not morality
hypocrisy? hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. EVERYONE, all cultures, in all backgrounds, has done wrong. so by your basis of being ineffective because of hypocrisy, then no one can ever criticize anyone for anything in this world!
in other words, you cannot expect someone to be a saint before they start criticizing others. because no one is a saint. charges of hypocrisy are completely groundless and pointless. anyone who charges that hypocrisy means they can commit crimes too is attempting to avoid personal responsibility. a crime is a crime is a crime. because someone else commits a crime, you can to?
example: you see some guys steal from a store. so you steal too. the cops catch you and you go "but its ok, because those other guys did stole too"
does that make sense to you?
you might say that the scenario is really like this: some guys steal from a store. you steal from the store too. then the guys who originally stole from the store try to criticize you for stealing
THAT'S hypocrisy
however: what if the guys who stole from the store go to jail for their crime, feel really bad about it, makes amends, and grows up to be a man, 10 years later, and to be more responsible
then he has every right and reason to criticize you for robbing from the store and charges of hypocrisy are bullshit. even if you go "but you stole from this store 10 years ago!"
cultural differences DO exist. but cultural differences do not excuse explain or condone transgressions against basic human rights
for example: a say in your own government, rather than being ruled by an elite class with a different agenda than the ruled. you say other people don't value this. really? who is saying that? the mediac ontrolled by said elite class? please
you say other people don't value the same things as they do in the west. well, obviously they don't care about SUVs, coffee bars, and suburban homes. but EVERYONE cares about self-determination, freedom to express themselves, and a desire to be considered equally. well, how do i know that? because human nature is pretty constant when it comes to these fundamental concepts, across all cultures, all time periods
but because the media mouthpieces of an elite ruling class in another country says differently you believe that? if the media mouthpieces under mugabes foot tells you zimbabweans like his economic policies, do you take that at face value?
here, try this analogy: a mythical country's government condones cannibalism. they say the victims of canniblaism are free participants in the practice, and any criticism of said practice is cultural imperialism and ehtnocentrism, and inability to see that other people have different beliefs than you
really?
i fully accept other people have different beliefs than in the west. but that idea doesn't extend to outright crimes against humanity!
obviously, cannibalism is an extreme example of condoning crimes against human rights under the bullshit rubric of "cultural differences", but i do it only to illustrate a concept in principle, not in scale
the fact is, the chinese government is not chosen by its own people, it is chosen by a bunch of grumpy old technocrats in beijing. therefore, IN THE NAME OF respecting the chinese people, i disrespect the chinese government
of course, the chinese government uses ultranationalism to force a rally round the wagons. the eeevil west has its machinations and manipulations. but this is a feint, a bit of demagoguery. a pointing out of the enemy over there, while you slip your hands in their pocket and steal your wallet, aka, their human rights of having a voice in their own government. appealing to xenophobia in order to squelch internal criticism is a tried and true propaganda move, as old as time, used in every government in every coutnry that has ever existed
however, you wish to use events of 200 years ago and 1000 years ago to excuse and condone the same kind of colonization by han imperialists in tibet today, or the actions of violent muslim fundamentalists today
this is not morality or a human conscience
the only morally and intellectually defensible position is to condemn: 1. the slaughter of native americans 2. european crusaders 3. han imperialism 4. violent muslim fundamentalism
condemn all of it. that's morality and intellectual honesty
to excuse 3 and 4 because of 1 and 2 is i don't know exactly what, but its not morality or intellectual honesty. its some sort of weird kind of attempt to avoid a human conscience
or go south of the rio grande, or south of the straights of bosporus or the rock of gibraltar... bzzzt, bap, pow... human nature suddenly radically warps, and the people there don't value things like freedom of speech, a fair say in their government, etc.
this is what you are saying, right?
it seems to me that "cultural difference" is doublespeak in your mind for "i don't give a damn"
the idea of a human conscience is exactly that. its not a western conscience, nor an american conscience
the only morally and intellecually defensible stand on issues like free speech or democracy is that it is deserved by everyone, on the entire globe. every other stand on this issue is morally and intellectually dishonest
do you believe human nature fundamentally alters when you cross a national border? if not, then "cultural difference" is a loaded concept for saying that you think people elsewhere are somehow less deserving, a soft racism
as for nationalism: yes, there are ultranationalists in china. as well as the usa. as well as russia, etc.
yet more proof that human nature is pretty much the same everywhere
the guy was a chimera, meaning he is the product of the rare fusion of two early embryos in the womb. so different organ systems in his body have different genetics. they tested the crime scene, and found out genetically that the main suspect was the brother of the actual perp. they rounded up the guy's brothers. none of them matched. the chimera guy was counting on all of this genetic confusion
unknown intruders penetrated xxx, because of security failure yyy you have always complained about, and the only reason you just happened to catch it is because you implented zzz as an afterthought
the catch of course, is that you are also the intruder, and the whole exercise was to deliver a lesson: things are too lacadaisical
that you look like a hero is just gravy
and if you think it is too risky to fake the intrusion, i guess you aren't up to the high standards you hold others by, huh?
put your money where your mouth is, or swallow your anxiety
what a bunch of protectionist assholes. european opposition to gm has nothing to do with ethics, not business ethics, not biological ethics, none of that. it has to do with the peculiar european phenomenon of protecting their farmers from the slightest global hiccup. sure other countries are protectionist, but europeans take it to a fetishistic level
europeans pretend to care about starving africans. if europeans would stop protecting their pampered farmers, and allowed african produce to enter their markets unfettered, african economies would bloom, and europeans would pay less for their food
but then assholes farmers will firebomb a mcdonalds in france. the gm issue in europe is pure propaganda. the fearful propaganda about frankenfood is exactly that: low iq propaganda
europe is morally bankrupt on the issue of gm food. when europeans open their agricultural markets, and stiff their pampered farmers, then they can lecture us about gm food. until then, fuck european farmers and fuck europe on the issue of gm food. holding back economic progress in the third world. let european farmers die off please. romantic notions about farmers in europe and the food they make is a fucking propaganda joke
rule of law is not something that exists in and of itself. if it doesn't have an organic affinity with whomever or whatever it is being imposed upon, if its rationale for existing can't be logically defended, enforcement of it is bound to fail, no matter how much you redouble your efforts. the concept that ip law is overstepping its bounds and serving runaway corporate greed rather than the common good is readily appreciated, evne by you and your fellow nazis, i dunno. therefore, you can recognize that rethinking an approach, an alteration of the law rather than cracking down with something fundamentally flawed, is a better course of action
you know it would help if you responded to what i actually wrote, rather than respond to the weird demons in their head
what i am saying has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing it, nor did it ever. read, interpret, then respond. don't: read, creatively extrapolate off of deeply rooted fears, then respond. k thx
Slashdot Mirror
so what underlies an otherwise intelligent religious person to resist evolution?
we need to confront the real underlying psychological issue here: faith in humanity
religious folk view something like evolution as a path to meaninglessness, nihilism, cynicism. your typical secular humanist expresses their faith in mankind directly: there is no conflict between evolution and being positive about mankind's future
but religious folk's minds don't work like that. for a religious person, their faith in humanity is indirect. it is tied up in symbols and code words, like god. god is really just a psychological manifestation of an abstract concept: an ideal man, what humanity strives for, progress
and around an idea like god, you get all of these related mythologies that again, are really just props for retaining and reaffirming and indirect positivistic faith in society and mankind
so what really divides the secular humanists and the religious folk are those with no faith in mankind. when you look at something like evolution, and you consider your traditional religious symbology that enforces your faith, you are confronted with a crisis. and you look at some of the nihilism in the world. not the atheists who believe in mankind, but the cynical, empty, boorish loud kind of atheist who sees no meaning in life, and you react to that. and so you react to evolution: it seems to be a path to this sort of empty faithless indolent nihilism
in other words, the negative reaction to evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk is really a reaction against the idea of meaningless in life
this is the psychological issue which underlies the rejection of evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk. and so the real way you defeat their resistance is by criticizing faithless nihilism. those who use evolution as a story about how mankind is meaningless, pointless: you attack and reject them
you talk about evolution, AND you talk about faith in humanity and you talk about evolution as reinforcing meaning, not destroying it. and in such a way, you draw down the resistance of intelligent religious folks to evolution, by demonstrating to them that evolution is not a threat to the idea of faith, that plenty of secular humanists with faith in mankind can also beleive in evolution, without some sort of psychological dissonance
1. bunch of techs in a room couldn't agree. they didn't agree to disagree, they just couldn't agree. subtle but very important difference
2. something had to be decided. again, subtle but important: life goes on, whether you agree what to do or not. getting lost in the minutiae of getting all the tiny quibbling details perfect is oftentimes less important than moving forward with something, anything
3. the non techie guy got fed up, and made things move forward: he forced a decision
that really seems to be about what happened here. and that really seems to be about the best anyone could do in this situation
the problem is the issue of open-ended versus closed systems. a techie tries to get the system closed and distill a perfect solution. but real life dictates that some things, especially a standard as complex as this, have a few grey area points no one can agree upon
then it becomes less important to get that grey area right, and more important to move forward. this drives perfectionist nuts. but if perfectionists ran the world, nothing would ever get done. there would just be endless meetings like the one described here
the bureaucrat killed the endless minutiae. the bureacrat did the right thing. the techies in the room fail to understand life is not about an endless meeting on minutiae
"one country, two systems"
its a good model for tibet and taiwain
the communists are slaughtering people in hong kong and macau?
uh... what are you smoking?
you simply say to the chinese: treat tibet like you do macau and hong kong, "one country, two systems", and we will allow you to absorb taiwan in the same manner. treat tibet like you did democracy protestors in 1989, and we will ship aegis anti-cruise missile technology to taiwan and station troops there and sign a defense treaty with taipei... or something like that: we will help taiwan militarily if tibet is treated like shit, and that makes sense, because if china gets away with treating tibet like shit unopposed, then the ultranational hawks in beijing will reap political windfalls and will begin to cast their eyes elsewhere for hard line tactics
btw, war between the usa and china will devastate the philippines. war between japan and the usa devastated the philippines in the 1940s for the same reason: the philippines is the "land in between" the two powers and so it is where the conflict will naturally gravitate too
so it is in the interest of every filipino that china and the west remain at peace
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=527156&cid=23120160
if the chinese experience in tibet evolves the way the us experience with native american evolved, it will proceed like this:
1. chinese greed will lead to tibetans being crushed, exterminated, humiliated
2. after awhile, tibetans will be forgotten and only 14 will be left living in a government trailer park
3. the chinese government will make gambling legal only on the tibetan reservations
4. chinese greed will lead to tibetans being made billionaires
see? it all works out in the end
1. no, the us does not protect its farmers anywhere near as zealously as the europeans. no one does
2. if the european consumers reject gm food, they are morons. OH NOES, IT HAS GENEZ! SAVE US!
you said two things:
you can't appeal to chinese conscience
"Fine, but the Chinese DO NOT CARE about your appeals to conscience"
and you haven't figured out what to do yet
"No. I believe that we can find some magic set of ACTIONS that will make China realize continued oppression of Tibet is not in its self-interest. I haven't figured out yet what it is"
eventually, you will arrive at what i already said to you:
all you ever can do is appeal to someone's conscience. this is the basis for all morality
the chinese have a conscience
appeal to it
when you are a position of power, you are blamed for everything
china will surpass the usa as world power in the next few years, if it hasn't done so already
as such, the chinese need to develop some thicker skin
because if you think that poem sums up the worst of the hypocritical complaints you get from the world, just you wait, it gets ten times worse
you don't get to be powerful in this world and everyone loves you
no one, NO ONE, who has ever ruled, was also loved
china is coming to rule. so china will come to be hated. this is utterly and completely unavoidable, no matter what china does
you think anti-americanism is unique to american actions? ha! just wait and see china, you will see nothing but criticism. and it is completely unavoidable. it is a simple byproduct of china growing stronger and basic human nature when it comes to power dynamics
china: grow some thicker skin. criticism is soon all you will know
i understand your point about stupid westerners
but it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the TIBETAN protestors, which, here in midtown manhattan near the UN, i've been seeing almost daily for the last few weeks
in other words, its one thing for you to dispute the words of idiotic westerners, which i agree with you about. but one would be really interested to hear in what way you dismiss the concerns of tibetans themselves
i think real peace in tibet comes when the han colonists stop treating the tibetans so badly. perhaps even back out of tibet. or, barring that, stop being allowed a two-tiered class system where the han get jobs, and tibetans get kicked to the roadside. appeasment of the tibetans will of course also include a large amount of self-rule, return of the dalai lama. but apart from outright independence, if china were to allow tibet more internal autonomy, this might even pave the way for china to prove to the world that the absorption of taiwan would proceed smoothly too
but when the wider world watches how han imperialism crushes tibetan basic rights, in their own damn country/ province, one thinks nothing but that china does not deserve to get its hands on taiwan
think about it. making the tibetans happy is the path to china peacefully reuniting with taiwan
outright xenophobic ultranationalism and han imperialism and treating tibetans like dirt means the wider world defying taiwanese reunion
nationalism is ugliness, and self-defeating. even when the chinese do it. the chinese must learn this, and they will, the hard way, or the easy way. not because the west has anything to teach the chinese, but simply that blind pride and hubris is self-defeating
the point is, han imperialism is the real problem, western idiots are the sideshow. not visa versa. western hippies do not create han imperialists. han imperialists inflame western hippies. you have your cause and effect backwards. and therefore, if you understood the real cause and effect you would be focusing most of your criticism at han imperialism, not western idiots
or continue your chinese nationalist pride, and justify to yourself why it is ok to think the tibetans have no validity to their complaints
and reap what you sow
between explaining and excusing?
all of your wonderful historical narrative means nothing, and you admit as much at the end: "Still, that's a Chinese problem, but the invasion and attempted cultural genocide of Tibet is something else entirely."
you hold people to a simple universal code of human conduct. no, it is not complicated. if its a simple code of human conduct, it is something universally appreciated by 99% of everyone on the planet. if what were happening in tibet were happening in africa, the chinese would condemn it
the chinese are clearly doing wrong in tibet. your historical narrative helps EXPLAIN what they are doing but it does not EXCUSE what they are doing, so it doesn't change any moral outrage, any sense of right and wrong, any need to condemn what deserves to be condemned
its not like you can study chinese history for 10 years, thereby arriving at some magic set of well-phrased words and at the end of which, the chinese go "oh yeah, that's wrong, we'll stop". its not about cultural understanding leads to a better outcome here
no: bad behavior is bad behavior is bad behavior. absolutely amount of cultural understanding changes that. you condemn bad behavior. any cultural or historical tweaks are bullshit
is appeal to people's conscience
that's the only thing you ever could do, or ever can do
its not some sort of weird game to figure out what motivates people. that's easy: self-interest is what motivates people. duh
you believe that if you study chinese culture and chinese point of view for 10 years you will arrive at some magic set of words that if you say to the chinese they will suddenly go "oh yeah, this is wrong, we'll stop it"
dude: you chastise someone when they do something wrong. thats the beginning and the ending of this complex thing called morality. anything else is not morality
hypocrisy? hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. EVERYONE, all cultures, in all backgrounds, has done wrong. so by your basis of being ineffective because of hypocrisy, then no one can ever criticize anyone for anything in this world!
in other words, you cannot expect someone to be a saint before they start criticizing others. because no one is a saint. charges of hypocrisy are completely groundless and pointless. anyone who charges that hypocrisy means they can commit crimes too is attempting to avoid personal responsibility. a crime is a crime is a crime. because someone else commits a crime, you can to?
example: you see some guys steal from a store. so you steal too. the cops catch you and you go "but its ok, because those other guys did stole too"
does that make sense to you?
you might say that the scenario is really like this: some guys steal from a store. you steal from the store too. then the guys who originally stole from the store try to criticize you for stealing
THAT'S hypocrisy
however: what if the guys who stole from the store go to jail for their crime, feel really bad about it, makes amends, and grows up to be a man, 10 years later, and to be more responsible
then he has every right and reason to criticize you for robbing from the store and charges of hypocrisy are bullshit. even if you go "but you stole from this store 10 years ago!"
well yeah, and i grew up!
cultural differences DO exist. but cultural differences do not excuse explain or condone transgressions against basic human rights
for example: a say in your own government, rather than being ruled by an elite class with a different agenda than the ruled. you say other people don't value this. really? who is saying that? the mediac ontrolled by said elite class? please
you say other people don't value the same things as they do in the west. well, obviously they don't care about SUVs, coffee bars, and suburban homes. but EVERYONE cares about self-determination, freedom to express themselves, and a desire to be considered equally. well, how do i know that? because human nature is pretty constant when it comes to these fundamental concepts, across all cultures, all time periods
but because the media mouthpieces of an elite ruling class in another country says differently you believe that? if the media mouthpieces under mugabes foot tells you zimbabweans like his economic policies, do you take that at face value?
here, try this analogy: a mythical country's government condones cannibalism. they say the victims of canniblaism are free participants in the practice, and any criticism of said practice is cultural imperialism and ehtnocentrism, and inability to see that other people have different beliefs than you
really?
i fully accept other people have different beliefs than in the west. but that idea doesn't extend to outright crimes against humanity!
obviously, cannibalism is an extreme example of condoning crimes against human rights under the bullshit rubric of "cultural differences", but i do it only to illustrate a concept in principle, not in scale
the fact is, the chinese government is not chosen by its own people, it is chosen by a bunch of grumpy old technocrats in beijing. therefore, IN THE NAME OF respecting the chinese people, i disrespect the chinese government
of course, the chinese government uses ultranationalism to force a rally round the wagons. the eeevil west has its machinations and manipulations. but this is a feint, a bit of demagoguery. a pointing out of the enemy over there, while you slip your hands in their pocket and steal your wallet, aka, their human rights of having a voice in their own government. appealing to xenophobia in order to squelch internal criticism is a tried and true propaganda move, as old as time, used in every government in every coutnry that has ever existed
ok, who let the belgians on slashdot?
;-)
non!
people's fries
;-)
with side order of mao's little red sauce
europe sent crusaders to the middle east
both of these things are wrong
however, you wish to use events of 200 years ago and 1000 years ago to excuse and condone the same kind of colonization by han imperialists in tibet today, or the actions of violent muslim fundamentalists today
this is not morality or a human conscience
the only morally and intellectually defensible position is to condemn:
1. the slaughter of native americans
2. european crusaders
3. han imperialism
4. violent muslim fundamentalism
condemn all of it. that's morality and intellectual honesty
to excuse 3 and 4 because of 1 and 2 is i don't know exactly what, but its not morality or intellectual honesty. its some sort of weird kind of attempt to avoid a human conscience
or go south of the rio grande, or south of the straights of bosporus or the rock of gibraltar... bzzzt, bap, pow... human nature suddenly radically warps, and the people there don't value things like freedom of speech, a fair say in their government, etc.
this is what you are saying, right?
it seems to me that "cultural difference" is doublespeak in your mind for "i don't give a damn"
the idea of a human conscience is exactly that. its not a western conscience, nor an american conscience
the only morally and intellecually defensible stand on issues like free speech or democracy is that it is deserved by everyone, on the entire globe. every other stand on this issue is morally and intellectually dishonest
do you believe human nature fundamentally alters when you cross a national border? if not, then "cultural difference" is a loaded concept for saying that you think people elsewhere are somehow less deserving, a soft racism
as for nationalism: yes, there are ultranationalists in china. as well as the usa. as well as russia, etc.
yet more proof that human nature is pretty much the same everywhere
"cultural difference" is a load of crap
do they call french fries fuck tibet fries in china?
one must anticipate these sorts of attacks
for indeed, a rolling stone gathers no moss
oh shit! what am i saying?
when an organization whose entire raison d'etre is malice does something stupid, its still malice
the guy was a chimera, meaning he is the product of the rare fusion of two early embryos in the womb. so different organ systems in his body have different genetics. they tested the crime scene, and found out genetically that the main suspect was the brother of the actual perp. they rounded up the guy's brothers. none of them matched. the chimera guy was counting on all of this genetic confusion
i for one welcome our new chimera crimelords
1. guy who has no idea how the intertubes works makes stupid proposal. as if he could matter to p2p traffic
2. guys who know how the intertubes works vent their fury. as if they matter to the political discourse at hand
unknown intruders penetrated xxx, because of security failure yyy you have always complained about, and the only reason you just happened to catch it is because you implented zzz as an afterthought
the catch of course, is that you are also the intruder, and the whole exercise was to deliver a lesson: things are too lacadaisical
that you look like a hero is just gravy
and if you think it is too risky to fake the intrusion, i guess you aren't up to the high standards you hold others by, huh?
put your money where your mouth is, or swallow your anxiety
what a bunch of protectionist assholes. european opposition to gm has nothing to do with ethics, not business ethics, not biological ethics, none of that. it has to do with the peculiar european phenomenon of protecting their farmers from the slightest global hiccup. sure other countries are protectionist, but europeans take it to a fetishistic level
europeans pretend to care about starving africans. if europeans would stop protecting their pampered farmers, and allowed african produce to enter their markets unfettered, african economies would bloom, and europeans would pay less for their food
but then assholes farmers will firebomb a mcdonalds in france. the gm issue in europe is pure propaganda. the fearful propaganda about frankenfood is exactly that: low iq propaganda
europe is morally bankrupt on the issue of gm food. when europeans open their agricultural markets, and stiff their pampered farmers, then they can lecture us about gm food. until then, fuck european farmers and fuck europe on the issue of gm food. holding back economic progress in the third world. let european farmers die off please. romantic notions about farmers in europe and the food they make is a fucking propaganda joke
rule of law is not something that exists in and of itself. if it doesn't have an organic affinity with whomever or whatever it is being imposed upon, if its rationale for existing can't be logically defended, enforcement of it is bound to fail, no matter how much you redouble your efforts. the concept that ip law is overstepping its bounds and serving runaway corporate greed rather than the common good is readily appreciated, evne by you and your fellow nazis, i dunno. therefore, you can recognize that rethinking an approach, an alteration of the law rather than cracking down with something fundamentally flawed, is a better course of action
you know it would help if you responded to what i actually wrote, rather than respond to the weird demons in their head
what i am saying has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing it, nor did it ever. read, interpret, then respond. don't: read, creatively extrapolate off of deeply rooted fears, then respond. k thx
oh, ps: you're a hysterical twit