Father kills daughter b/c she wanted to marry for love

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Czarina_Czarina
not sure if this is a true story, i was googling something and clicked on a page, i continued reading it when i was shocked to hear of this story, i pray it's not true:

"A father angry that his eldest daughter married for love slit her throat as she slept, then killed three other daughters in a remote village in eastern Pakistan, police said Saturday. Nazir Ahmad, a laborer in his 40s, feared the younger girls, aged 4 to 12, would follow in their 25-year-old sister's footsteps, police officer Shahzad Gul said.Hundreds of women are killed in Pakistan every year, many by male relatives, after they are accused of having affairs or marrying for love without their families' consent"


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jLa5subGVXAJ:liquidlifehacker.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html+%22third+eye%22+penal+gland&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us

Magee
This happened in pakistan, not much of a shock.

Thanos_1990
wow

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Magee
This happened in pakistan, not much of a shock.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Magee
This happened in pakistan, not much of a shock.


i have a general compasion for people, and at times, it's problematic, if i thought of it the way you did, it would be business as usual, as this is their culture and this is how they want to raise their children, hurts to read stuff like this.

Schecter
but.........i thought we fixed the middle east with freedom. blink

chithappens
Don't judge other people's culture unless you can give us some thorough preview of their beliefs and explain in context

Devil King
Originally posted by Schecter
but.........i thought we fixed the middle east with freedom. blink

Yeah, it's called abortion.

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by Magee
This happened in pakistan, not much of a shock.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
i thought of it the way you did, it would be business as usual.


thats how i feel whenever i read or see anything like this taking place, Pakistan or not

chithappens
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
thats how i feel whenever i read or see anything like this taking place, Pakistan or not

And yet still, some people feel that way when they read about capital punishment here.

Or maybe 20 years in jail for possession of weed? Sounds a little familiar to domestic stuff also.

Robtard
Originally posted by Schecter
but.........i thought we fixed the middle east with freedom. blink

This happened in the Asian part of Pakistan. wink

inimalist
Originally posted by Magee
This happened in pakistan, not much of a shock.

yes

Originally posted by chithappens
Don't judge other people's culture unless you can give us some thorough preview of their beliefs and explain in context

ok

what context makes it ok to violate someone's human rights?

hurray for relativism

chithappens
Example of this is environmental justice:

For the West: The environment directly around them.

Native Americans: The entire Earth. Tends to also include social justice.

You can't universalize the ideas of a certain culture to all people; if you agree or not is another thing entirely.

inimalist
Originally posted by chithappens

You can't universalize the ideas of a certain culture to all people; if you agree or not is another thing entirely.

So what you are saying is:

"Because it was the Western world that went through the enlightenment and had the freedom to develop the idea of innate human rights, it is immoral to apply those human rights to people in other parts of the world because they...."

Ok, so I don't know why. I don't think the fact that I am a white Canadian makes Arab abuses of women any more justifiable.

Yes, their culture says that women are worth less than man and are the property of them. Boy, I guess that makes it right.

chithappens
I didn't say it is justifiable. I didn't say it was cool with me. It just is.

Your judgement is invalid if you do not know what they do and why they believe as they do.

It's not about right or wrong. Stupid ass words like that relative/subjective/ and so on. Disagreeing is not the same as saying it is wrong.

I wouldn't do it but someone else would. They would say I was wrong for respecting her wishes, then explain why through their beliefs and all I would be able to do is say "Hey, you are disrespecting her rights that she is entitled to but that you don't believe in!"

It doesn't go anywhere. There are certain situations where I would not apply the same logic because I think every argument has some flaw in it, but certainly there should be no judgement among people who you know nothing about, who do not even believe as you do.

inimalist
That is preposterous

So, Hitler was ok because he believed in what he was doing.

Most serial killers believe in what they are doing, the compulsion is part of the psychology.

You assume I know nothing of the Arab world? Wow. ok, what standard of proof would you like me to display?

I am not saying that I disagree with these people. I am saying that their actions and beliefs are wrong and evil.

Are you saying that there are times that humans can be treated as property and it is not evil? That subjigation of women is not in any moral interpretation wrong?

chithappens
Long story short, doing what you are talking about leads to stuff like being able to start a war on bullshit and then say you were "trying to save the people from tyranny."

O wait, there's the war in Iraq.

inimalist
Logical fallacy A) Strawman: Nobody has proposed any solution to this evil. Do not assume what action I want taken to combat evil.

Logical fallacy B) Slippery Slope: Just because we judge people and ideas as wrong does not mean we will go to war.

Logical fallacy C) Unstated Premise: You don't even aknowledge that you are making the slippery slope argument.

Logical fallacy D) Double Standard: It is not ok to Judge the ideologically driven actions of others yet you judge the ideologically driven actions of the American government.

....

I think thats all that were in there....

chithappens
And that could happen in any situation... Nothing is universal, to be taken at all times and "perfect."

I didn't say I was correct about this.

inimalist
Originally posted by inimalist
Are you saying that there are times that humans can be treated as property and it is not evil? That subjigation of women is not in any moral interpretation wrong?

chithappens
Evil is a dumb word and I don't use it because it is too easy to twist. I personally think it is wrong.

It is only a bad moral outlook if you were told it was a bad moral outlook.

It is not x or y. It is more complicated because we do not all live the same experiences and are not taught the same thing.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by chithappens
Evil is a dumb word and I don't use it because it is too easy to twist. I personally think it is wrong.

It is only a bad moral outlook if you were told it was a bad moral outlook.

It is not x or y. It is more complicated because we do not all live the same experiences and are not taught the same thing.

yeah, right. we'll just vacation you to a real flesh eating cannibalistic society that doesn't speak the same language you do, and see if "not knowing" x or y will be a problem for you, after all, if they don't have a definitive line for evil and cannibalism, your thigh may end up tasting just like chicken, and according to your philosophy, why would we interfere, "evil is a dumb word" (those are your words).

inimalist
ok

I agree with that for the most part. I guess I should point out that in judging people's actions as wrong, my solution isn't at all related to punishment or whatever.

True, the only reason I think that abusing human right's is evil is because I believe that human rights are important. And I guess in an absolute objective analysis, that is no more "true" than what anyone else believes.

But that kind of academic abstraction is compleatly useless when dealing with real world problems. As a nation, believing that any ideology or action another nation takes is ok simply because we don't have the right to judge them is ridiculous.

If you want to make the slippery slope argument, fine, if the war on terror may have been started through condemnation of other people's belief's (mind you, beliefs that do not distinguish between civilian or soldier) then world war 2 was started by this isolationist mentality you are promoting.

chithappens
And to answer this before it comes up, I believe in morality but I sum it up simply as "respect the person next to you." You respect one as you would yourself and it is does become universal which would equate to treating women with respect.

Everyone has some sort of doctrine that mentions that but don't really follow it. All the other stuff is just some jargon of a certain culture when morality is simply respecting others.

chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist
ok

I agree with that for the most part. I guess I should point out that in judging people's actions as wrong, my solution isn't at all related to punishment or whatever.

True, the only reason I think that abusing human right's is evil is because I believe that human rights are important. And I guess in an absolute objective analysis, that is no more "true" than what anyone else believes.

But that kind of academic abstraction is compleatly useless when dealing with real world problems. As a nation, believing that any ideology or action another nation takes is ok simply because we don't have the right to judge them is ridiculous.

If you want to make the slippery slope argument, fine, if the war on terror may have been started through condemnation of other people's belief's (mind you, beliefs that do not distinguish between civilian or soldier) then world war 2 was started by this isolationist mentality you are promoting.

I agree with you there. World War II began because of the Versailles Treaty which pretty much screwed certain countries. It was not a treaty meant to uphold peace but one which promoted revenge. I know a lot about the rising of the 3rd Reich but am too lazy to get detailed. The people were looking for retribution because they felt mistreated. The isolationist mentality began with the Versailles Treaty. Hitler just took advantage of people being pissed. He gave them what they wanted and they didn't question much until it got pretty far (Machiavellian principles).

I just think that people of different nations need to come to each other with an understanding that they are just people like everyone else. The problems arise when one seems to be accusatory in tone when disagreements come up.

What you demonstrated was international relations but one must keep in mind that all exchanges between different nations are purely utilitarian: "What can thou do for me?" rather than, "How can we all help one another?"

chithappens
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
"evil is a dumb word" (those are your words).

Evil can mean good. Good can mean evil.

In war, I kill you to protect my country and that's my good and your evil. Vice versa.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by chithappens
Evil can mean good. Good can mean evil.

In war, I kill you to protect my country and that's my good and your evil. Vice versa.

yup, to a cannibal, ur leg would taste just like chicken

chithappens
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
yup, to a cannibal, ur leg would taste just like chicken

You realize that is spam and not really adding anything right?

inimalist
Originally posted by chithappens
I just think that people of different nations need to come to each other with an understanding that they are just people like everyone else. The problems arise when one seems to be accusatory in tone when disagreements come up.

and then we can hold hands and sing under the rainbow

it would be nice if all people acted rationally toward one another, they don't.

Also, there is a reason to speak accusitorily toward people who are violating other's human rights. I have no problem telling people who are abusing others to stop it.

Originally posted by chithappens
What you demonstrated was international relations but one must keep in mind that all exchanges between different nations are purely utilitarian: "What can thou do for me?" rather than, "How can we all help one another?"

The UN, Doctors without Borders and many other organizations would disagree with you on that.

Not to mention both the anti-globalizational and anti-war movements, and the mass generosity around the world when major disasters and trajedy strike.

You seem to be promoting this image of yourself as a learned and read individual, knowledgeable in all things cultural, but these arguments are quite naive.

Relativism is fine, keep it in whatever ivory tower you think you live in. You cannot solve real world problems by simply saying "Thats just how they feel"

Would you be willing to extend this same generosity toward neo nazis and the KKK? are white lynch mobs cool by you? Like, be anti-war and anti bush, but be smart about it.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by chithappens
You realize that is spam and not really adding anything right?

cannibalism is EVIL, and you are stating that there is good in evil, so, to a cannibal, your leg would taste like chicken.

Fishy
Originally posted by inimalist
and then we can hold hands and sing under the rainbow

it would be nice if all people acted rationally toward one another, they don't.

Also, there is a reason to speak accusitorily toward people who are violating other's human rights. I have no problem telling people who are abusing others to stop it.



The UN, Doctors without Borders and many other organizations would disagree with you on that.

Not to mention both the anti-globalizational and anti-war movements, and the mass generosity around the world when major disasters and trajedy strike.

You seem to be promoting this image of yourself as a learned and read individual, knowledgeable in all things cultural, but these arguments are quite naive.

Relativism is fine, keep it in whatever ivory tower you think you live in. You cannot solve real world problems by simply saying "Thats just how they feel"

Would you be willing to extend this same generosity toward neo nazis and the KKK? are white lynch mobs cool by you? Like, be anti-war and anti bush, but be smart about it.

You're comparing Neo Nazi's and the KKK to people who are against a war??

inimalist
Originally posted by Fishy
You're comparing Neo Nazi's and the KKK to people who are against a war??

no, im assuming that his cultural relativism is a by-product of hating Bush.

I am only doing this because the vast majority of people who make the arguments he does come at the issue of culture from that angle.

If he is a pro war republican I will take it back

to be honest, I am fairly anti-war personally and not a member of the KKK

Czarina_Czarina
Would you be willing to extend this same generosity toward neo nazis and the KKK? are white lynch mobs cool by you? Like, be anti-war and anti bush, but be smart about it.

(mocking) according to him, there is no such thing as evil, so the klan had a couple of picnics and BBQs, so what someone in pakistan kills off their girls, so what?

inimalist
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
(mocking) according to him, there is no such thing as evil, so the klan had a couple of picnics and BBQs, so what someone in pakistan kills off their girls, so what?

laughing out loud laughing

Fishy
Originally posted by inimalist
no, im assuming that his cultural relativism is a by-product of hating Bush.

I am only doing this because the vast majority of people who make the arguments he does come at the issue of culture from that angle.

If he is a pro war republican I will take it back

to be honest, I am fairly anti-war personally and not a member of the KKK

That's an incredibly strange assumption...

How does he have to be pro war to think that relativism is in fact true? And that some people would not consider what happened to that girl or her family wrong?

And what if he is a pro war democrat? Or an anti war bush loving republican? If those exists....

inimalist
Originally posted by Fishy
That's an incredibly strange assumption...

How does he have to be pro war to think that relativism is in fact true? And that some people would not consider what happened to that girl or her family wrong?

And what if he is a pro war democrat? Or an anti war bush loving republican? If those exists....

jesus christ

chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist


Would you be willing to extend this same generosity toward neo Nazis and the KKK? are white lynch mobs cool by you? Like, be anti-war and anti bush, but be smart about it.

Neo Nazis and KKK is a stretch for a comparison but I get what you mean.

All of these fall under the cultural ideals of the West. Under those moral understandings it is wrong. People of another culture will judge and do so under different understandings of the certain intensity of a wrong. With this in mind, there are different understandings of what is right or wrong. Everyone does not have the same idea of what these self promoted universal ideas of right or wrong.

Lynch mobs have no problem hanging black people. It is their good. I don't say they are cool and I don't mind it. That's just what they do and what they think. People can say whatever they want to them about how evil it is and they hold to what they believe. The focal point is what culture is doing the judging and what the mindset is. Lynch mobs are wrong in a democratic society and not acceptable (at least in the ones of today). I could write an essay on this but frankly I am too lazy to do so.

I do not endorse it but the words good and evil are just used to mess with people's heads.

I never said that nations DO or EVER WILL try to understand one another. But all the diplomacy is a facade. That was my point for the start.

Oh and if you notice all those organizations such as the UN are in place, and that's good but they don't control a damn thing in terms of the actions of a nation. Countries receive sanctions all the time and continue what they were doing. Bush used it like this, "diplomacy was attempted and they didn't comply so we invaded." Those organizations are in good intention but they are without power so they are useless. In implementation, oh excuse me the "real world", they do nothing.

I am not trying to say I know everything, but you are making assumptions about me without asking which is cute, it really is.

chithappens
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
(mocking) according to him, there is no such thing as evil, so the klan had a couple of picnics and BBQs, so what someone in pakistan kills off their girls, so what?

Ok so I guess you are going to go help all the women of Pakistan by personally going there and changing the paradigms of all inhabitants?

inimalist
Originally posted by chithappens
Neo Nazis and KKK is a stretch for a comparison but I get what you mean.

How is it a stretch? Please be very specific.

Originally posted by chithappens
All of these fall under the cultural ideals of the West. Under those moral understandings it is wrong. People of another culture will judge and do so under different understandings of the certain intensity of a wrong. With this in mind, there are different understandings of what is right or wrong. Everyone does not have the same idea of what these self promoted universal ideas of right or wrong.

Absolutly. And as I have said, that is a wonderful little academic abstraction that falls nicely in the existentialist/postmodern realitivity camp.

However, in practice, that ideal HAS TO let people who want to hurt eachother do it.

Maybe I'm being ethnocentric, but oppression is a bad thing, regardless of the reason.

Maybe you should look at WHY the west has established human rights, about the origins of restrictions on government and religion.

No, western ideology is just as "true" as any other when it comes to morality. However, are you saying just because it can't claim to be the 100% true way to do it, that it is not better than ideologies that allow for needless oppression?

Originally posted by chithappens
Lynch mobs have no problem hanging black people. It is their good. I don't say they are cool and I don't mind it. That's just what they do and what they think. People can say whatever they want to them about how evil it is and they hold to what they believe. The focal point is what culture is doing the judging and what the mindset is. Lynch mobs are wrong in a democratic society and not acceptable (at least in the ones of today). I could write an essay on this but frankly I am too lazy to do so.

Please, I would love an essay on this, as long and as specific as you can make it.

Originally posted by chithappens
I do not endorse it but the words good and evil are just used to mess with people's heads.

Interesting, I do not endorse the use of the word potato or blue, as they are instruments of confusion

Originally posted by chithappens
I never said that nations DO or EVER WILL try to understand one another. But all the diplomacy is a facade. That was my point for the start.

This point is totally unrealted to whether or not we as a society should condem the actions of other cultures.

Originally posted by chithappens
Oh and if you notice all those organizations such as the UN are in place, and that's good but they don't control a damn thing in terms of the actions of a nation. Countries receive sanctions all the time and continue what they were doing. Bush used it like this, "diplomacy was attempted and they didn't comply so we invaded." Those organizations are in good intention but they are without power so they are useless. In implementation, oh excuse me the "real world", they do nothing.

ya, again, nothing to do with judging other nations.

Also, because the UN is useless doesn't mean other NGO groups are. Go read up on Doctor's without Borders.

Hell, look at what Bill Gates is doing in Africa.

Originally posted by chithappens
I am not trying to say I know everything, but you are making assumptions about me without asking which is cute, it really is.

Thanks, I am cute big grin

inimalist
Originally posted by chithappens
Ok so I guess you are going to go help all the women of Pakistan by personally going there and changing the paradigms of all inhabitants?

ok, this is a valid question, if asked in the form of a logical fallacy.

What do we do about evil?

Well, the first answer has to be "something that will result in less evil"

If any western individual went to pakistan and tried to free women who want to live in subjigation it would fail, obviously.

Just because there is no easy way to fix evil does not mean it is not evil.

chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist




Absolutly. And as I have said, that is a wonderful little academic abstraction that falls nicely in the existentialist/postmodern realitivity camp.

However, in practice, that ideal HAS TO let people who want to hurt eachother do it.



No it doesn't. You are under an assumption that I say there is anarchy and no law. I'm saying that there is no universal understand of right/good and wrong/evil. Judgement can not be implemented in ways it is meant to be if the understandings of the law are not the same. Two separate cultures placing judgement on each other is stupid.

I'm speaking in broad terms about separate cultures rather than individual understandings of people in the same society.

chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, this is a valid question, if asked in the form of a logical fallacy.

What do we do about evil?

Well, the first answer has to be "something that will result in less evil"

If any western individual went to pakistan and tried to free women who want to live in subjigation it would fail, obviously.

Just because there is no easy way to fix evil does not mean it is not evil.

I'm not saying that nothing be done at all. But because good can equate to evil it makes the words invalid.

In the case of evil and good this is possible: x=y. Making it invalid to begin with. One action may resonate differently among people making the words stupid because they do not have a universal meaning.

chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist


Hell, look at what Bill Gates is doing in Africa.



Not trying to be an ass but what is he doing? I just do not know. I know of some stuff he has done here but I don't know about in Africa. I am glad people who have the resources try to help out those in need. That is necessary, but the ones who can make a permanent difference do not because there is no longer incentive in Africa. Colonization stripped everything and now no nation feels the need to bother because they got what they wanted.


Nations of the West claim to be humanitarian but tend not to implement these principles when atrocities are going on in random spots, such as Africa and they sit on their hands because there is nothing in it for them. There is no government set in place; whoever has the gun is the power. Go West! They sure do stick to there beliefs by golly! They say they believe those things are wrong but do nothing to help but don't mind "placing" people in power they will do their bidding.

I am glad individuals chip in but countries who can make some things not as bad choose not to do so when they could help which is one reason there is so much beef between developed and undeveloped nations. They will go when there is incentive to do so and only then.

Magee
lol at some peoples opinion aka oncewhite u big ***.

There is no such thing as right or wrong. This man in Pakistan must have thought it was right to do what he did. However I don't along with quite a lot of people but that doesn't give us the right to judge and say he was wrong. To us and in our minds yes, his actions can not be justified but i'm afraid at the time in this mans head, his actions were right and more than justified... I love this "oh i feel there pain" but its funny when you didn't know them, speak to them, ever see them or even witness it or attached to that family in any way and the only thing you know about this is what you have read in a news article. One person dies every second, you want to go cry for them?

I will be back later on and oncewhite will probably be here going on about how she is better than me and is glad she is not like me, have a nice day. smile

inimalist
Originally posted by chithappens
No it doesn't. You are under an assumption that I say there is anarchy and no law.

No, I am assuming that you are saying that people can't judge each other. I have not asked you what you think of the law.

I'd certainly be interested in how your legal system would work, considering JUDGMENT is an essential part of due process.

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm saying that there is no universal understand of right/good and wrong/evil. Judgement can not be implemented in ways it is meant to be if the understandings of the law are not the same. Two separate cultures placing judgement on each other is stupid.

So Nazi Germany was ok, because their law said their atrocities were ok?

No, I agree with you, I totally hold the post modern idea of no absolute universal truth. However, that seems to be where you want to stop talking.

Just because someone thinks it is ok to oppress women, why would their thinking justify it?

Are you saying that there is no difference between a country that has human rights and one that does not? Are you saying that there are no objective benefits to having human rights? Are you saying that people don't deserve the basic fundamental freedoms?

You should look at the enlightenment. Many people died simply for the things you are saying are unimportant now.

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm speaking in broad terms about separate cultures rather than individual understandings of people in the same society.

please give objective boundaries to culture and society. Where does the west end and others begin, why am I considered part of the West even though I don't share many of the core ideals like democracy or multi-culturalism, and why would geographical location make judgment wrong (Even though you think it is wrong for things to be wrong)

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm not saying that nothing be done at all. But because good can equate to evil it makes the words invalid.

What would we do then?

It is wrong (although you don't believe in wrong) to judge people.

If we can't tell them we don't like what they are doing, then what can we do?

Originally posted by chithappens
In the case of evil and good this is possible: x=y. Making it invalid to begin with. One action may resonate differently among people making the words stupid because they do not have a universal meaning.

This is a linguistic argument. It is interesting in its academic application, but too abstract for the real world. Allow me to demonstrate.

Blue is a word that we use to symbolize a certain section of wavelengths of visible light. There is no objective way to define where blue stops and green starts, therefore there is no difference between blue and green.

So fine, there is no evil. There is also no sky, sun, people, you, me, air, water, colours, things, or well ANYTHING simply because language by its nature is subjective.

Its a fun arguments, but I can't believe you are making it in a moral fashion. I understand entirely why you don't want to back down from your position, but I really shouldn't have to be arguing that the act of owning slaves is wrong.

If you don't think it is, please give me the conditions under which slavery is ok.

Originally posted by chithappens
Not trying to be an ass but what is he doing? I just do not know. I know of some stuff he has done here but I don't know about in Africa. I am glad people who have the resources try to help out those in need. That is necessary, but the ones who can make a permanent difference do not because there is no longer incentive in Africa. Colonization stripped everything and now no nation feels the need to bother because they got what they wanted.

I is strange that the next few paragraphs you have deal with why the West doesn't help Africa, yet this paragraph is entirely about how dismal of a situation there is there, and how nothing we can do will help.

Don't you see the inherent contradiction in this idea?

Oh, and about Bill Gates. Its called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Not to seem snarky, but I am not your research aide. If you want to have a real discussion about Africa, I would suggest a more thorough investigation, especially of the NGO groups you are so quick to dismiss.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

The wiki has some real criticisms, notice how they are not "Africa is a shit hole"

Originally posted by chithappens
Nations of the West claim to be humanitarian but tend not to implement these principles when atrocities are going on in random spots, such as Africa and they sit on their hands because there is nothing in it for them.

This should be fine by your ideology. To call something an atrocity, we would have to judge the actions of those involved.

Genocide is cool by you if it is in another country

Originally posted by chithappens
There is no government set in place; whoever has the gun is the power. Go West!

I wont call this racist because I'm sure it stems from ignorance more than dislike of Africans.

1) All countries in Africa are not the same. Many are budding democracies that do have moderately stable economies. They are in need of aide in ways we can help. By painting all Africans with the "too far gone to help" brush, you are hindering the development of possible success stories in Africa.

2) There are many countries where this is not the case, such as Sudan or Somalia. In those countries, our help is normally counter productive. Sudan is a perfect example. The genocide occurring there is terrible, however, if Western nations became involved, the situation would quickly deteriorate into another Iraq, simply because the people there are more loyal to the oppressive rulers than to outsiders.

The latter situations are much more nuanced than the first ones. It is likely that they will only be resolved through the actions of neighboring countries or through grass roots movements.

Originally posted by chithappens
They sure do stick to there beliefs by golly! They say they believe those things are wrong but do nothing to help but don't mind "placing" people in power they will do their bidding.

Ya, that is pretty lame. It certainly doesn't solve any problems.

Please don't assume that I am in favor of American Imperialism.

Originally posted by chithappens
I am glad individuals chip in but countries who can make some things not as bad choose not to do so when they could help which is one reason there is so much beef between developed and undeveloped nations. They will go when there is incentive to do so and only then.

The weird thing is that NGOs are much more likely to help others in the third world than nation states just because of their organization.

Aide given by governments is normally wasted and rarely is used for the projects it is given for (In the disparate countries more so). NGOs usually bring aide directly to the people, providing food, education and medicine that individuals would never have been able to get from government aide.

chithappens
You took a hell of a lot of liberties when trying to explain what I "really" meant. I do agree with you in a few spots but when you got to international politics it all went downhill.

I did not say I had some idea for a perfect legal system. Most of the issues with our system stem from the very thing you keep biting me about: subjectivity. Not all people get equal treatment for a crime (notice I did not say the same treatment. different counties in the same state would have differences on how severe something is, but this changes given certain attributes of an individual such as money).

Your allusion to the color blue was very clever. I like it 4 real stick out tongue. I did not make my point well before so here's my refutation: The color blue could be named red in some remote region. That is not my focus. Language, as you said, is subjective. But who talks about things without having a concrete idea of what terms they will use actually mean (Speaking of which this guy in the philosophy forum has Utilitarianism all wrong laughing )? I am speaking about definitions in which people understand it already and what it means according to the construct of the culture. Mathematicians understand tangents to deal with trig. Beach folk with tans, maybe laughing . English with ... and so on. They probably wouldn't know what the hell was going on. I don't use slang among people who don't know what the hell I'm talking about. It goes both ways here, but my point is that those who understand what the other means to say can get it. The ones outside the circle just looked confused.

If the same thing happens to the girl here, the man is confused as to why he is being put on trial. There is no universal understanding of right. If you could would you go on a plane, bring him here, and put him on trial?

I know about a nice amount about the situation in Africa. You totally miss my ideas here. I am saying that these countries do not give a damn even though they claim to be all righteous. No, I do not think it is ok to contradict what you say you are about about. I am judging from the stance of what they say they are about, but they watch it and do nothing.

I agree with your point #1 to a small extent. But it is not many nations, it is a few. I am not hindering the success stories. You are saying it is a majority when I am positive that is not true. You speak about grassroots organizations as if they could really do anything there. Do you know about what they do to people there? I'm just curious. Like how they brand the women as if they are horses, as property. Mutilation is commonplace. Something like "Invisible Children" (a movie that came out not too long ago) should never, ever be tolerated by these countries who claim they want peace and all that goodness.

Yes, nation states are not likely to help out, and that's really f'd up. Certainly, if they ever need new markets, new consumers they will go help laughing

Dreamt
Taking life is taking life.

chithappens
Originally posted by Dreamt
Taking life is taking life.

Not in the eyes of the beholder: defending self, or in war.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.