Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll never understand countries in the east that will go on and on and on about how "evil" and "corrupt" the west is yet are MORE than happy to take advantage of all of it's amenities and great things it has to offer at the same time. In their minds how do they rationalize it?
Currently the big thing is the leaders in the middle eastern countries but they aren't the only ones. During the cold war the Soviets would go on and on about how bad capitalism and democracy was yet not only did they have little problem embracing all the great things the west had to offer but leaders would send their own children to the west to be educated. WTF???
Just what kind of f'd up mentality do they have? Do they even realize how hypocritical they are, or do they just not care? And what causes one to have such a barbaric hypocritical mindset in the first place?
If you try to assert that democracy, technological discoveries etc are a "western" thing, you're wrong. All these achievements would have appeared somewhere else, maybe at a later time, if theoretically the west didn't exist. The West was the first in many fields only because in the last 1,000 years was a more advanced society and was like that as result of geographic advantages (lesser invasions) and the natural environment advantages (good climate, soils, water, food), that allowed their better development in comparison with other continents / zones of the planet.
If you refer to those nations that presently receive western financial or other kind of material support and then behave treacherous, or to immigrants that instead of being thankful to the host nation hate them, you're right.
Why are these people that perverse? Because they are formed by a sick society and culture, where lying or stealing is not seen as such a big crime, especially if is done to those from outside their cultural group. In fact, individuals with such attitude are persons with real personality disorders, narcissism and others, which combined with low level of education, leads to lack or moral principles and they transmit this condition to their offsprings.
When you are born in a family from such a culture, is almost impossible to became better, on one hand because they don't have the models / repers to develop an intelectual set of values (imagine what means to live with a psycho mother and psycho father from the first years of your child life) on other hand, because even if one realises that his family and cultural group is on the wrong path, commonly has not the moral strenght to dissociate from them, and as result continues to live a life of continuous moral compromise.
why are these people that perverse? Because they are formed by a sick society and culture, where lying or stealing is not seen as such a big crime, especially if is done to those from outside their cultural group. In fact, individuals with such attitude are persons with real personality disorders, narcissism and others, which combined with low level of education, leads to lack or moral principles and they transmit this condition to their offsprings.
When you are born in a family from such a culture, is almost impossible to became better, on one hand because they don't have the models / repers to develop an intelectual set of values (imagine what means to live with a psycho mother and psycho father from the first years of your child life) on other hand, because even if one realises that his family and cultural group is on the wrong path, commonly has not the moral strenght to dissociate from them, and as result continues to live a life of continuous moral compromise.
If you try to assert that democracy, technological discoveries etc are a "western" thing, you're wrong. All these achievements would have appeared somewhere else, maybe at a later time, if theoretically the west didn't exist. The West was the first in many fields only because in the last 1,000 years was a more advanced society and was like that as result of geographic advantages (lesser invasions) and the natural environment advantages (good climate, soils, water, food), that allowed their better development in comparison with other continents / zones of the planet.
If you refer to those nations that presently receive western financial or other kind of material support and then behave treacherous, or to immigrants that instead of being thankful to the host nation hate them, you're right.
Why are these people that perverse? Because they are formed by a sick society and culture, where lying or stealing is not seen as such a big crime, especially if is done to those from outside their cultural group. In fact, individuals with such attitude are persons with real personality disorders, narcissism and others, which combined with low level of education, leads to lack or moral principles and they transmit this condition to their offsprings.
When you are born in a family from such a culture, is almost impossible to became better, on one hand because they don't have the models / repers to develop an intelectual set of values (imagine what means to live with a psycho mother and psycho father from the first years of your child life) on other hand, because even if one realises that his family and cultural group is on the wrong path, commonly has not the moral strenght to dissociate from them, and as result continues to live a life of continuous moral compromise.
Love this, and explains a lot! My question is, why do certain regions/cultures have a harder time breaking out of that than others? The west was very brutal/violent as well yet we managed to "grow up" and start seeing those things as wrong. Yet most of the eastern world seems to have a harder time with it, or just getting decent leaders that AREN'T mentally insane!
Also, when it comes to brutal dictatorships, why do they even bother trying to act like they are at all good when anyone can see they are clearly not? Take North Korea for example. It's officially called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but they can't SERIOUSLY believe they are at all Democratic or hold ANY ideals relating to it, can they? Why not just drop the pretentious BS and call themselves something like "Totalitarian leaders dictatorship of Korea"? It's not as if they would change anything in regards to how we see them or give them aid.
Same with the Middle Eastern countries. Even if all the leaders came right out and said "Yeah, we're some of the most evil SOBs to have ever existed and we LOVE to brutally kill/destroy/oppress" it wouldn't change all the aid they are given or all the money we happily invest into oil or whatever. Or make western leaders any less likely to do business with them, shake hands and act all friendly and loving towards them.
Love this, and explains a lot! My question is, why do certain regions/cultures have a harder time breaking out of that than others? The west was very brutal/violent as well yet we managed to "grow up" and start seeing those things as wrong. Yet most of the eastern world seems to have a harder time with it, or just getting decent leaders that AREN'T mentally insane!
This is what I actually tried to explain in the previous message:
- there are some human groups that evolve from the primitive condition, in which every one fight with others (like animals) to a condition of cooperation for common benefits.
- some other groups appears to not be able to evolve (at last not as fast as others), because of a historical-cultural ethnic identity based on immoral norms and values. The solution for them to evolve would be to repudiate this identity and heritage of them, but that solution would mean they will accept that their group is inferior to others (and this is how they will be perceived & treated). So, maybe this attachment to an immoral heritage is a sort of defense mechanism.
Quote:
Also, when it comes to brutal dictatorships, why do they even bother trying to act like they are at all good when anyone can see they are clearly not? Take North Korea for example. It's officially called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but they can't SERIOUSLY believe they are at all Democratic or hold ANY ideals relating to it, can they? Why not just drop the pretentious BS and call themselves something like "Totalitarian leaders dictatorship of Korea"? It's not as if they would change anything in regards to how we see them or give them aid.
As I lived under a similar (though not as tough) regime, I can tell you that is a system which initially is created by some people but later it became a sort of self-living organism, that forces everybody to obey some rules and behavioural patterns, or to be crushed, be they at the top of the hyerarchy (the leader himself too) or at the bottom. In Korea they fear each other and fear the system. If one voices something against the regime, will be arrested and killed soon and his family too may be imprisoned or assassinated. The solution would be to revolt all of them at the same time and overcome the gouvernment's forces but even if something like this would happen, the dictatorship will not be overthrown without a big bloodbath.
If you try to assert that democracy, technological discoveries etc are a "western" thing, you're wrong. All these achievements would have appeared somewhere else, maybe at a later time, if theoretically the west didn't exist. The West was the first in many fields only because in the last 1,000 years was a more advanced society and was like that as result of geographic advantages (lesser invasions) and the natural environment advantages (good climate, soils, water, food), that allowed their better development in comparison with other continents / zones of the planet.
If you refer to those nations that presently receive western financial or other kind of material support and then behave treacherous, or to immigrants that instead of being thankful to the host nation hate them, you're right.
Why are these people that perverse? Because they are formed by a sick society and culture, where lying or stealing is not seen as such a big crime, especially if is done to those from outside their cultural group. In fact, individuals with such attitude are persons with real personality disorders, narcissism and others, which combined with low level of education, leads to lack or moral principles and they transmit this condition to their offsprings.
When you are born in a family from such a culture, is almost impossible to became better, on one hand because they don't have the models / repers to develop an intelectual set of values (imagine what means to live with a psycho mother and psycho father from the first years of your child life) on other hand, because even if one realises that his family and cultural group is on the wrong path, commonly has not the moral strenght to dissociate from them, and as result continues to live a life of continuous moral compromise.
I completely disagree with this sloppy bit of cultural relativism. For the West did not spontaneously blossom into technological achievement. It required the steady imposition of rational thought into everyday culture, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to the Scientific Revolution. Concepts such as rationalism, property rights, law, and egalitarianism. That means the fruits of technological advancement were hard-won over the span of centuries. None of these concepts are Western, per se. But the West made them its own and reaped the rewards.
It is useful to remind you that, at the beginning of the 1500s, the Islamic world was actually much more prosperous than the West, not to mention on an equal footing when it came to technology. That's why the Age of Exploration was begun in the first place, namely to circumvent the Muslim stranglehold on trade routes to the east. The Turks were hammering away at the gates of Vienna as late as 1683. I mean, the Islamic world wasn't exactly prostrate at the feet of the West for centuries.
But while the Muslim world retreated from its high-water mark in the 1300s, the West continuously invested in research and continued to adapt. So while the Muslim world gave us algebra and the architectural marvels of Spain, it has not done a great deal since. Heck, even today, the entirety of the Muslim world still lacks the ability to manufacture an internal combustion engine (Although a couple of plants are beginning to break ground), and its number of yearly international patents is less than that of sub-Saharan Africa. To me, that's the refutation of your thesis. The relative balance of power between societies is in constant flux chiefly by what they choose as important.
What's more, I find the rest of your argument to be awfully strange. The Japanese in the mid-19th century were roughly as backwards as the Arabs were at the time. But after Commodore Perry opened the country to trade, the Japanese made a societal effort to learn Western ways and western technology. The result was that Japan enjoys rough parity with the West 150 years later, chiefly because it applied large swaths of Western thought to the reformation of their society. The same is true of China today, however imperfectly. The fact that these countries and others throughout East Asia are enjoying a great deal of progress because of the adoption of Western thought says a great deal.
In short, the West and countries such as Japan prevailed because they committed to become advanced societies, not because they were innately advanced to begin with.
I completely disagree with this sloppy bit of cultural relativism. For the West did not spontaneously blossom into technological achievement. It required the steady imposition of rational thought into everyday culture, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to the Scientific Revolution. Concepts such as rationalism, property rights, law, and egalitarianism. That means the fruits of technological advancement were hard-won over the span of centuries. None of these concepts are Western, per se. But the West made them its own and reaped the rewards.
That is pretty much nonsense for a simple reason: there is not a certain individual or person called "west" to behave in a rational way as you say, but a multitude of individuals with different personalities and characters that benefited from the achievements of their predecessors. There is not a superior gene that western people own or some other native quality of them.
Quote:
It is useful to remind you that, at the beginning of the 1500s, the Islamic world was actually much more prosperous than the West, not to mention on an equal footing when it came to technology.
That is pretty much a myth. At that time, the Ottoman empire was the main force in the Muslim worldes and to call them prosperous or technologically equal with the West is inaccurate. They were backward. Even in the golden age of the Islamic civilisation, during the Arab caliphates, all their advancement was based on the knowledge stolen from the libraries of the civilisations they conquered: Hellenistic-Roman (in the former Byzantine territories), Persian and Indian and they didn't contribute as much as is usually thought. l-Khwārizmī, the greatest Islamic mathematician was actually a Persian and some claim he wasn't even a Muslim but a Zoroastrian.
Quote:
But while the Muslim world retreated from its high-water mark in the 1300s, the West continuously invested in research and continued to adapt.
The greatest advantage of the Western nations was their geographical environment. On one side, they were not exposed to invasions (as have been Romanians, being situated at the gate of Europe), on other side they had a great amount of sea coast that allowed better communication, exploration of new territories, experiences that widened their horizon.
Quote:
Heck, even today, the entirety of the Muslim world still lacks the ability to manufacture an internal combustion engine (Although a couple of plants are beginning to break ground), and its number of yearly international patents is less than that of sub-Saharan Africa.
In the case of Islamic word, the backwardess has as main cause the domination of religion. Is not that they are not able to built more complex machines but that they don't want, they consider such activities worthless or even sinful. If you read the Islamic textes, the Quran, the Hadith, you gonna see how strictly the religious rules limits one's life. There are rules for almost everything in the daily life, like with which foot (left or right) must be stepped first when entering toilet and so on. Many of these rules are not only absurd, but really insane, sign that their author suffered from OCD and other disorders.
Also, must be said that in the Islamic societies, there is always a minority of hardliners that impose a stricter religious lifestyle to others, usually by constrictive means, inclusively by terrorist threatenings and generally, the Islamic society functions after the same rules as an authoritarian society, but not a political authoritarianism, a religious one. I mean, everybody mimmicks how much of a religious person he/she is and incriminates the ones with lesser zeal for religion only to be better perceived etc.
Quote:
In short, the West and countries such as Japan prevailed because they committed to become advanced societies, not because they were innately advanced to begin with.
There was a combination of factors that lead to their success, inclusively some visionary and higly moral people among them. To be noted that Japanese also benefited from good natural conditions.
In short, the West and countries such as Japan prevailed because they committed to become advanced societies, not because they were innately advanced to begin with.
And they became successful nations precisely because the embraced both the concept of freedom of expression and the concept of open markets. Economic and political freedom are unitary and inseparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CARPATHIAN
If you try to assert that democracy, technological discoveries etc are a "western" thing, you're wrong.
Then please explain to us why the development of parliamentary democracy, like the fight against slavery, emerged simultaneously in several nations ... all of them Western.
In the case of Islamic word, the backwardess has as main cause the domination of religion. Is not that they are not able to built more complex machines but that they don't want, they consider such activities worthless or even sinful. If you read the Islamic textes, the Quran, the Hadith, you gonna see how strictly the religious rules limits one's life. There are rules for almost everything in the daily life, like with which foot (left or right) must be stepped first when entering toilet and so on. Many of these rules are not only absurd, but really insane, sign that their author suffered from OCD and other disorders.
Responding to this specifically: I never thought of that. It makes a lot of sense though. Question: What kind of psychedelic drugs would Muhamed have had access to in those days? It's quite obvious whenever he'd go to his cave visits he was snorting something that caused him to have all kinds of hallucinations but obviously drugs like meth and heroine weren't around then, and I don't think weed alone would have been enough to cause him to hallucinate like he did, though I could be wrong.
Also, do you think the drugs he took warped his mind into wanting to become the conquerer/invader he eventually became or do you think he always had the desire but the drugs helped him to come up with a convenient religion people would follow?
One thing I will never understand is how, even for Atheists/Agnostics one could ever think muhamed was better than Jesus. Even most non-religious people agree Jesus existed and even if he didn't perform all the miracles attested in the Bible most would agree he was a nice caring person that wanted genuine peace. Jesus most certainly never raped children or went on a bloody conquering killing spree! Whereas regardless if you are religious or not it's a FACT he was an insane murderer/dictator that killed/pillaged wherever he could.
I also have always found it hilarious that muslims get so butt hurt over an image of him, at least the image of Jesus alone has never gotten people to kill, in fact Jesus' image is a staple of Judeo-Christian religions. Then again, if I raped children I wouldn't want my image shown either, even if it were a likeness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whereas regardless if you are religious or not it's a FACT he was an insane murderer/dictator that killed/pillaged wherever he could. 
