11 Mar
2006
11 Mar
'06
2:20 p.m.
Hi!
Alle 18:33, sabato 11 marzo 2006, Paul Davis ha scritto:
the USA has historically acted in a way that suggests
a profound
institutional fear; a fear of creating laws that rely on somnewhat arbitary
"lines" which when you cross them invite a different legal response than
when you stay on the other side.
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...). 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.
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'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:)
Sorry for the OT!
Byez!
Carotinho
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it