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.