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.
Better or worse is subjective. A more relevant question in my opinion would be to ask if all cultures are compatible. I think the answer to that question is an emphatic NO.
There are limits to free speech. I own CNN and deliberately and knowingly run false stories to slander you, you can sue for damages and win.
Additionally, this is a privately owned website.
Yes we do have unalienable rights. Our country is founded on that principle, which is why it is a crime to take someone's life from them due to them being gay.
If a society has beliefs and customs that propagate the legal killing of gays for being gay, then I say that culture needs to change in that aspect. And on that aspect, that culture is inferior to cultures that protect the life of gays and value them as equal citizens.
I am not defining an entire culture by that. Why would I judge their food by that?
I am saying that I refuse to negotiate on the morality of killing gays for being gay. It is wrong period. It is not subjective and open to interpretation - a culture might brainwash someone into thinking it is moral, but it is always immoral.
Killing gays or not is a part of one's culture. If you agree with me that killing gays for being gay is always immoral, than that culture is propagating immoral behavior and needs to change, because it is inferior in that aspect.
Please name one right that is unalienable. Remember if a right can be taken away, it is not unalienable.
Again, stop imposing your view upon others. By doing so, you are allowing others to impose their view upon you.
You say other cultures need to stop killing gays; conversely other cultures can say you need to start killing gays. Who's going to win? The one with more guns and with more determination to kill off anybody that don't agree.
This is precisely where our problem is in terms of foreign policy. We think our culture is the best and we GO OUT OUR WAY to impose our cultural views upon others. When we do that to other cultures, it causes huge clashes and conflicts. A much better way is to demonstrate our culture, maybe a better way to live, but let other people live the way they want to live.
For example, we should adhere to the international laws (by the way, we couldn't care less about the international laws when it doesn't fit our needs) and encourage others to do the same but we should stop meddling with other cultures internal affairs. They want to kill gays, go right ahead. It is their problem not ours as long as they don't come to our country and kill gays.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 07-27-2016 at 10:31 AM..
"Culture" in predicated on the idea of doing things "collectively". So in that regard, if you mean "cultures" created by government, than I'd say all cultures are evil and immoral. As soon as the collective imposes its will upon the individual with aggression, it simply becomes a "culture" of barbarity, slavery, and coercion.
I would rather look into how much aggression (initiations of force) is tolerated or "justified" within a society to judge its value or morality. Even in our pseudo democracy (I know it was supposed to be a republic...) aggression, violence, and coercion is at the foundation of everything that takes place in this "society". Even if the Central Banking Families didn't run everything like their personal Plantation and the people voted on laws instead of "representatives" you would still essentially have an evil mob-rule "society". We are nothing but warring bands of thugs and tyrants using thug government to impose our personal will upon our neighbors. In fairness, we are far "freer" than other "free" nations though
Personally, I would think that the only cultures that still had any morality left in this world are among those isolated from "modern governments". As forming any truly voluntary society is nearly impossible on a grand scale. So there are probably a few tribes out there that live like actual moral human beings isolated from the "modern world" of thuggery. Their cultures, if voluntary, would be the best and most moral cultures in existence in my opinion.
As culture is predicated on the outcomes of intelligence of the fictional collective. And the fictional collective can only exist with widespread aggression, violence, and coercion against the individual. I would not say that modern "cultures" existing under modern "governments" have an actual culture. As there is nothing intelligent about relying on aggression, violence, and coercion to order a "society".
Any animal can simply use (government, majority, "collective", "representatives", dictators, etc) aggression to impose its/their will, No intelligence is required to do so at all.
Please name one right that is unalienable. Remember if a right can be taken away, it is not unalienable.
You are a bit ridiculous on this.
Unalienable Rights does not revolve around whether or not it is possible to break it.
When the Founding Fathers wrote that unalienable rights include the right to life, they didn't think the laws of physics would be suspended and murder impossible.
It means that you have the universal right to your life and no one can justly murder you in cold blood. And that if a government infringed upon this right, the people have the right to rebel and institute a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Again, stop imposing your view upon others. By doing so, you are allowing others to impose their view upon you.
You say other cultures need to stop killing gays; conversely other cultures can say you need to start killing gays. Who's going to win? The one with more guns and with more determination to kill off anybody that don't agree.
You say Nazism, the set of political and economic beliefs prevalent in Germany during the 1930s and early 1940s, is amoral. Neither right or wrong, that it was merely the beliefs and customs (aka culture) of that society and I as an outsider can't judge it objectively.
I will always disagree with you. Nazism is immoral. A civilized society must say Nazism and the holocaust was morally wrong as it destroyed lives in cold blood, their inalienable right.
Civilized society must always protect unalienable rights.
P.S. Just because one culture is inferior in a particular aspect doesn't necessarily necessitate that we should impose our more moral beliefs and customs on that people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
This is precisely where our problem is in terms of foreign policy. We think our culture is the best and we GO OUT OUR WAY to impose our cultural views upon others.
That is a completely different off-topic issue of whether or not all cultures are equal. One can think they are unequal, but be an isolationist.
You get these people that to prove how tolerant they are, they support cultural relativism and cultural equality, to the point that they will claim that:
-killing gays for being gay
-raping little boys
-Nazism
-raping wives
-slavery
-sexual harassment
is neither right or wrong, it is all subjective form the eye of the beholder. Yet there is a real danger in that kind of tolerance, isn't there?
Im waiting for Manifest Destiny to come back. Darwinism is the truist form of cultural superiority. The strongest and smartest have the capability to do what they want.
Cultures are suited to people in their native environments.
Is antebellum American culture inferior with beliefs and customs in favor of slavery? Not really. It was good for them, but people today don't particularly like it. They thought that their culture is superior.
Why should I argue with them against slavery?
There you go again using ad hominem appeals in arguments based on my race. Sorry, that doesn't work on me.
Slavery was wrong in America based on America's OWN constitution and so-called majority faith.
Again, our culture works for us. It's worked well for us. But I'm not about to take the liberty of saying that our culture is superior to other's. It's not my place to say that.
I agree. The tendency is known as ethnocentrism. People use their own culture as the barometer with which to measure other cultures, believing theirs is right or better.
So the entire discussion becomes meaningless.
But it can be fun, so discuss away...lol.
Agreed.
With that said, I don't know about my culture's ranking relative to others', but I, personally, am way better than a lot of people.
You get these people that to prove how tolerant they are, they support cultural relativism and cultural equality, to the point that they will claim that:
-killing gays for being gay
-raping little boys
-Nazism
-raping wives
-slavery
-sexual harassment
is neither right or wrong, it is all subjective form the eye of the beholder. Yet there is a real danger in that kind of tolerance, isn't there?
Just wanted to note that I am not trying to prove how "tolerant" I am. I actually am not all that tolerant of any behavior that I view as negative, including the behavior in other countries/cultures. However, I also am not ignorant enough to believe that my point of view is more important than any one else's point of view and that I have a unique experience as an American, reared in American culture and so I cannot be objective when rating the cultures of other nations.
I'll also add that in regards to the above list you posted, those things are basically crimes. You keep acting as if those crimes and a society's reaction to them represent the entire culture of a nation. All I'm saying is that all people and all cultures have both positives and negatives and due to that there is no way equivocally that you can state that one culture is superior to another. I also agree that all cultures are not equal, but none are better or worse than any other. I'm sure N. Koreans and Sudanese and Japanese and Cubans could pick apart American culture and place themselves as superior to us based on their own unique experiences and knowledge of their own culture versus ours.
America has the most imprisoned population of any technologically advanced nation. We have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Even in Cuba and N. Korea they have free healthcare so no one has to suffer due to not having access to medical care. Crime is much more rampant in America (including rape, trafficking/slavery, and sexual harrassment) than in other countries in our world. So how can you say we are superior to someone else's culture when by all accounts we have a high degree of dysfunction in our society.
Unalienable Rights does not revolve around whether or not it is possible to break it.
When the Founding Fathers wrote that unalienable rights include the right to life, they didn't think the laws of physics would be suspended and murder impossible.
It means that you have the universal right to your life and no one can justly murder you in cold blood. And that if a government infringed upon this right, the people have the right to rebel and institute a new one.
Again, that's American view, to which even the majority of the Americans disagree. Plenty of Americans are happy to surrender their rights - see if they can give up their rights, they aren't rights or unalienable.
We don't have rights; we have privileges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
You say Nazism, the set of political and economic beliefs prevalent in Germany during the 1930s and early 1940s, is amoral. Neither right or wrong, that it was merely the beliefs and customs (aka culture) of that society and I as an outsider can't judge it objectively.
I will always disagree with you. Nazism is immoral. A civilized society must say Nazism and the holocaust was morally wrong as it destroyed lives in cold blood, their inalienable right.
Civilized society must always protect unalienable rights.
P.S. Just because one culture is inferior in a particular aspect doesn't necessarily necessitate that we should impose our more moral beliefs and customs on that people.
Americans certainly didn't give a crap about Nazism, a left wing liberal extremism. Fighting the Nazis was not because they were amoral but because they affected our interest.
You keep throwing around phrases that aren't defined. What's a civilized society? Who has the authority to define that? Your view of being civilized could be vastly different from mine. Who's right?
A culture is not inferior. It's just different. You disagreeing with them doesn't make them inferior. It make YOU, the person, inferior because you don't know how to respect other cultures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
That is a completely different off-topic issue of whether or not all cultures are equal. One can think they are unequal, but be an isolationist.
No, it's not a different issue. You keep trying to impose your view upon others. I keep reminding you that many people in the world would disagree, sometimes violently, with your view.
Unless we want to conquer the whole world, we are all isolationists.
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.