[quote]rainjack wrote:
She’s 11 fucking years old, dipshit. Go to hell. [/quote]
what does age have to do with anything?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The girl has had the bad luck to be born in the wrong place. But do I think she is being raped miserably- Hell no. Even in Afghanistan (where some strange foreign armies are trying to instill democracy from above) they condemn violence in a marriage. If he beats her, the Imam may hear about this and kick his ass. …
You must be joking. Sex with an 11 year old is rape and violence against women is acceptable in that culture as long as the beatings are not too severe.
He is not advocating rape or beatings. The point is don’t be too quick to judge. No, it is not right to sell off your daughter’s to be married. However, we have been given no reason to believe she is being raped or beaten, and I highly doubt she is. I am sure it happens on occasion, just like it does here. The topic at hand is simply the marriage to an 11 year old, which we all agree is wrong, but in and of itself doesn’t constitute rape accusations.
If he is having sex with an 11 year old it is rape.
I have no idea if he is beating her but if he is I doubt the local Imam would give a shit as long as the beatings were not too severe.
[/quote]
IF he is having sex with her I agree with you, but we have no evidence to accuse him of this so until then I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because they don’t live up to the same moral standards as us does not mean that they are purely evil. It is completely plausible that he will not have sex with her until she attains an age where she can consent with complete understanding.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Relativism is rooted in natural law; see Einstein ca. 1905, 1917.[/quote]
No, relativity is, relativism is not.
Einstein wasn’t confused on this. He was smart - you are not.
For some catch up:
Moral relativism constitutes a final area where Time, Paul Johnson, et al. misfire in ascribing even an indirect causal role to Einstein. Again, Einstein disavowed any connection between his theories and a system of morals or ethics. He believed in a god and in fixed notions of right and wrong. Second, moral relativism did not, as Johnson suggests, burst out of nowhere in the 1920s. Philosophers have long entertained the idea that right and wrong are human or social conventions. Finally, to the degree that moral relativism did take hold in the 20th century, its currency owed more to such thinkers as Friedrich Nietzsche, who in the 19th century argued that reason doesn’t lead us to absolute standards of good or evil. Proclaiming that God is dead, Nietzsche suggested that the new man, or superman, creates his own morality in the service of his own will to power. If you want to understand the popularity today of relativism, visit any elite college campus. There are more students toting Nietzsche than there are spouting Einstein.
And more besides, as we have been through, your theory refutes itself as a matter of logic - that is the point.
We all get that you are trying desperately to be the radical intellectual, like a child flailing for attention - but you have to occasionally make sense for any of us to start doing anything but chuckling in your direction.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We all get that you are trying desperately to be the radical intellectual, like a child flailing for attention - but you have to occasionally make sense for any of us to start doing anything but chuckling in your direction.[/quote]
its all the same thing. relativity and relativism – same damn thing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
its all the same thing. relativity and relativism – same damn thing.[/quote]
And here is where you end - if you don’t know the difference, and if you didn’t even know there was a difference, then thanks for providing me with some unintended comedy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
She’s 11 fucking years old, dipshit. Go to hell.
what does age have to do with anything?[/quote]
If you have to aske that, then you have either never had a daughter, or you are a pedophilic piece of shit.
11 year-olds are incapable of adult thought process.
How can you - other than just for the sake of argument - even ask such an ignorant question?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How can you - other than just for the sake of argument - even ask such an ignorant question? [/quote]
Because he is an intellectual - or, at least, he wishes we thought he was.
You are some sick, self-righteous individuals.
So what do you propose. Shoot Muhamed? Bomb his village. Teach them sweet, sweet democracy?
Know that your intervention in Iraq (removal of a secular fuehrer) paved the way for countless cases such as this.
Afghanistan is already as full of Burkhas as it was during Taliban regime (who were just one of countless fanatical militias).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
How can you - other than just for the sake of argument - even ask such an ignorant question?
Because he is an intellectual - or, at least, he wishes we thought he was.
[/quote]
At the risk of sounding like a dumbass - there is right and there is wrong.
In certain situations, even entertaining an intellectual argument proves ones own stupidity.
The little girl is 11 fucking years-old. Anyone that thinks an 11 year-old is capable of entering a consensual proposition such as marriage/rape/submission should be dragged to the town square and tortured.
How many of you moral relativist assholes have a daughter? The rules change drastically once you have something to defend.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You are some sick, self-righteous individuals.
So what do you propose. Shoot Muhamed? Bomb his village. Teach them sweet, sweet democracy?
Know that your intervention in Iraq (removal of a secular fuehrer) paved the way for countless cases such as this.
Afghanistan is already as full of Burkhas as it was during Taliban regime (who were just one of countless fanatical militias). [/quote]
How about not raping prepubescent children, for starters?
Fuck off, asshole.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You are some sick, self-righteous individuals.
So what do you propose. Shoot Muhamed? Bomb his village. Teach them sweet, sweet democracy?
Know that your intervention in Iraq (removal of a secular fuehrer) paved the way for countless cases such as this.
Afghanistan is already as full of Burkhas as it was during Taliban regime (who were just one of countless fanatical militias).
How about not raping prepubescent children, for starters?
Fuck off, asshole. [/quote]
For all of the accusations toward Mohammed for things that we just don’t know about, I find it ironic that nobody has mentioned the lack morals by the girls parents.
Moral relativism is a joke. Morality wins out in the arena of thought, which oftentimes turns out to be the battlefield. More moral cultures most often win in battle because superior people are more apt to fight for a cause if it is just. Superior people equals more brainpower equals better weapons, as well as smarter and tougher fighters which equals victory.
This is sick. His lesser culture is also why he’s stuck living in a shithole and we’re sipping lattes behind keyboards.
mike
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
To be fair, kids are able to purchase alcohol and tobacco in many third world countries. Many of them are able - ney, forced - to get jobs.
The fact that those societies are third world countries should tell you something.
[/quote]
It tells me that they represent the average human experience far better than Canada.
They are the norm, you are the aberration.
As is any society that does value its children.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Moral relativism is a joke. Morality wins out in the arena of thought, which oftentimes turns out to be the battlefield. More moral cultures most often win in battle because superior people are more apt to fight for a cause if it is just. Superior people equals more brainpower equals better weapons, as well as smarter and tougher fighters which equals victory.
This is sick. His lesser culture is also why he’s stuck living in a shithole and we’re sipping lattes behind keyboards.
mike[/quote]
Your cultural superiority and superior weaponry owes more to the east-west axis of Eurasia and the several peninsulas in Europe than to superior people and mores.
In other words you got lucky Dude, otherwise they would be spreading their values with the sword in Oklahoma.
[quote]orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Moral relativism is a joke. Morality wins out in the arena of thought, which oftentimes turns out to be the battlefield. More moral cultures most often win in battle because superior people are more apt to fight for a cause if it is just. Superior people equals more brainpower equals better weapons, as well as smarter and tougher fighters which equals victory.
This is sick. His lesser culture is also why he’s stuck living in a shithole and we’re sipping lattes behind keyboards.
mike
Your cultural superiority and superior weaponry owes more to the east-west axis of Eurasia and the several peninsulas in Europe than to superior people and mores.
In other words you got lucky Dude, otherwise they would be spreading their values with the sword in Oklahoma.
[/quote]
I see you’re a Guns, Germs, and Steel guy. I’m more of a Carnage and Culture thinker.
I’m willing to bite though, give me more.
mike
Here is a good book on life in Kabul.
Asne Seierstad: The Bookseller of Kabul
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Moral relativism is a joke. Morality wins out in the arena of thought, which oftentimes turns out to be the battlefield. More moral cultures most often win in battle because superior people are more apt to fight for a cause if it is just. Superior people equals more brainpower equals better weapons, as well as smarter and tougher fighters which equals victory.
This is sick. His lesser culture is also why he’s stuck living in a shithole and we’re sipping lattes behind keyboards.
mike
Your cultural superiority and superior weaponry owes more to the east-west axis of Eurasia and the several peninsulas in Europe than to superior people and mores.
In other words you got lucky Dude, otherwise they would be spreading their values with the sword in Oklahoma.
I see you’re a Guns, Germs, and Steel guy. I’m more of a Carnage and Culture thinker.
I’m willing to bite though, give me more.
mike[/quote]
I have not read the second book, but I will.
The synopsis at Amazon makes me believe that it argues along the same lines as Keegan, namely that the Greeks were the first that developed the will to get as close to the enemy as necessary to kill him and to develop a formation that made it possible and that all of Europes forces inherited that spirit.
My point would be,
a) why did this attitude develop and , more importantly, was cultivated in Europe?
b) did Europes geography, after having given us an advantage of a few thousand years over the Americas and Australia also further help us by having several major powers constantly fighting each other rather than a unified empire like the Chinese.
The Chinese had one peninsula => Koreans.
We have Spain, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, the British isles and several massive mountains that divide the continent.
Not only strategy is geography, cultural development also is.
Had we not fought constantly for hundreds of years were hundreds of players were constantly trying to get the upper hand our firearms (or even crossbows) might have been mothballed like in Japan.
America Fuck Yeah!
EU Fuck Yeah!