21 Mar
2006
21 Mar
'06
2:50 a.m.
Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> But there is something that is not an
"arbitrary lines". There are
> absolute values, like importance of human beings etc. You simply
> cannot put these values into discussion, because they are the
> foundation of social living (and not only that...).
Let me get this right - we are not free to discuss these values?
This is your culturally conditioned assumption, not an absolute.
Personally I would probably be happy to hang out on a site where Sexism
and Racism are censored, however, this is not Anarchy, this is
Socialism. The problem is, that different people have different
interpretations of what constitutes 'Racist' or 'Sexist' - I have been
accused of Racism for calling my friends 'Pakis' or my brother & sister
'half-caste', which I think has more to do with fashion than human
rights. I also call my brother & sister my 'siblings' which is
apparently technically incorrect, but, with all due respect you can
swivel on my technical incorrectness :) they're MY family. I guess it's
all relative . ;p
The new-age idea
> that "everything is relative" or what
else it's spelled in English, is
> not appliable, IMO, to human beings, otherwise everything crumbles.
> This is why there are laws against racism, sexism, slavery, violence
> etc. in all the countries, given that the freedom to think differently
> cannot exceeds the bounds of social livings: say what you want, but
> you ca't do it if it's inhuman. And we have to accept that, while
> conception of mankind etc. can differ from culture to culture, those
> absolute values remains the same.
This is not true.
> Example: female mutilations in Africa. They are
practiced sometimes by
> mothers to their own daughters, since they thinks it's right. Should
> they be _free_ to think,
I think you've just insulted their culture. Genital mutilation is
horrible in my opinion, but how about we consider male circumcision or
purdah. Many people make these choices out of free will and from an
informed position. What would happen if someone suggested banning these
things? They would be accused of Racism.
I'm sure they would recognize that this is a
> dishuman practice, to be banned as soon as
possible, because it goes
> against the simplest idea of human being. They say that they are
> content of these practices? They are, only as we are content when
> people agree with us: that is, we feel that we are well inserted in a
> given community (think of boys that commit crimes in order of being
> accepted by friends etc.). So, it's relativism again, and it would
> destroy itself and the surrounding world: if everything is relative,
> even the idea that everything is relative should be relative, so
> nothing is sure etc. etc:)
I tend to subscribe to the relativistic position. But I'm not sure about
that. I defend my and other people's right to make up our own minds on
these issues. I'm sure if there was a nice pat solution we'd have given
it a decent shot by now.
cheers,
tim hall