Danes vs Muslims?

[Ratty Sr.]

See, this is just bad. BAD.

1. Western != civilized. China was civilized long before the West was, and civilization in Western Eurasia started in the Middle East. Unless you aren't using 'civilized' in its actual meaning here, and by 'civilized' actually mean Western, in which case you're just a racist asshole.

2. Pacifism and stability are in no way Western values. Instead; conquest, war, 'heroism' and power are. Learn your history. There's only one kind of culture I can think of that actually has pacifism as a value, and that's buddhism.

3. Western culture is not superiour to any other kind of culture, and should not be held up as the pinnacle of human achievement.
What, are you still stuck in the colonial age?

I was referring to the modern western civilization. Duh. I judge a civilization's level od development by affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld, and by those criteria the western civilization *is* currently the pinnacle of human achievment.

The only universal taboo around the world is incest. Even in Western culture, Murder is not considered 'universally heinous and immoral crime'. Case in point: state executions in the USA. But you're right, though, the USA is a 'primitive and depraved society', as you so eloquently put it. It does prove, though, that morals and values differ from perspective to perspective, and that each society has different institutions and values in its social structure.

So you are saying if majority of people in a certain society don't find an action morally reprehensible, then that action isn't morally reprehensible in the society? I'm sorry, but such concept is alien and repulsive to me. I believe in universal morality same way I believe in existence of God, and no sociological hypothesis will make me question that belief.

this is especially not true, especially not in Western culture. From gladiator rings over medieval tournaments on to present-day boxing, wrestling and violent movies and games, Western culture has considered violence to be a load of fun. Think things through, Ratty.

It is in human nature to enjoy violence, but that doesn't make violence any less immoral or unacceptable. The extent to which a society is willing to tolerate violence only testifies to how (un)developed, from ethical perspective, that society is.

That said, I don't consider modern-day violent sports immoral, because they are consensual and their purposes are, in essence, harmless - health and entertainment. Same goes for violent entertainment in general.

Now remember what we just learned about violence and murder. Values and morals are dependant of the needs of the social group. What you consider morally reprehensible and what not are nothing but the values of your present day social structure that you have internalized.

Children were sexually abused and married before they were even fourteen over the entire world until only relatively recently - the early middle ages for Europe, IIRC. Heck, most likely Mary mother of God was still a child when she gave birth to Jesus. Pedophilia was not considered morally reprehensible then. It's just that simple. That value simply wasn't there. It might be hard to grasp, but it *really* wasn't there. There is not a single ancient text (that I know of) that condemns pedophilia. Not even the Bible, IIRC. Pedhophelia was not outlawed in any law system until relatively recently. pedophilia might seem disgusting to you and me, but that's because of our present-day values. It's really not all that hard to understand, Ratty.

And as I said above, I don't buy into this "relative morals" nonsense. As far as I am concerned, "values and morals are dependant on the needs of the social group" is another way of saying "some social groups are more primitive and barbaric than others".

Pedophilia: At the age of fourteen, most girls are already capable of conceiving. In human societies of old, this was the sole criteria of adulthood and eligibility for marriage. Back then, people knew nothing of psychological processes that occur in adolescence and are as integral part of becoming an adult as physical development. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. It is a psychological illness, an unnatural condition. A sexual act with a child is immoral abuse, plain and simple, because one of the participants is simply incapable of comprehending the nature of the act and thus incapable of objectively consenting to it. The Bible doesn't explicitely prohibit pedophilia, but it prohibits and condemns child abuse, and pedophilia is just that.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:10, King James Version)

 

[Roshambo]

This misconception about the Qu'ran teachings is one of the oldest around.
I don't know where you read it, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't from any serious Qu'ran study.

Sorry, but when the Prophet does it himself, and then modern people take that as a personal blessing from him because he did it, then it paints a pretty bad picture. Oh, did I also neglect to mention that the Prophet was an incestuous cousin-fucker as well?

Also, the parallel with Christianity is easily drawn. The entire blaming-women-for-all-evil thing is pretty obvious there too - of which the Original Sin thing is a well known example. In Christianity too it was the Woman that seduced the Man to evil, by good old Judaistic tradition.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Indeed, I have mentioned how the Bible has been far more derogratory towards women at the start, if you put the books at parallel. At least the Qu'uran does provide some rights for the woman, but it still isn't equal for women nor is it fair.

I still find the acceptable beating if your wife continually defies you as, again, another level of stacked bullshit behind "Islam is peaceful" in any form.

First of all, I don't see how his criminal activities tie in to the teachings of Islam.

Oh, for fuck's sake, you're not only getting as far off-base as ban-bait Max, but you're also missing the entire point that is why Islam/Muslim is so fucked up today. Africa goes by a spoken qawly by the Prophet, because he was Allah's mouthpiece, and therefore it is right for the mouthpiece of Allah say to do, therefore it is right. There is an even more important aspect for what a spiritual leader does in a religon, especially in Islam. That sets an example for the people following him. Like Buddha, Jesus, and others, who were NOT being barbarous. It is also how the Catholic church was having problems because leaders of the community were getting touchy-feely. Bad image, and if not corrected, sets a bad precedent.

The Prophet set many of those, precedents. He did it, therefore it is right.

I sincerily doubt there's a passage in the Qu'ran somewhere that states "Thou shall raid caravans".

The Prophet did it, and many other things. He was the one speaking the word of Allah. Therefore, he is holy and deemed to be the most worthy of us all, to have been chosen by Allah, and his word and action is example. Simple common human psychology. It's called herd mentality.

Secondly, the parallels between Christianity are again easily drawn. David, for instance, one of the more important characters in Christian tradition, was a pretty violent character too.

No, David is common to both Christianity and Judaism, and BEFORE a certain hippie came around preaching peace and love. And frankly, a couple of passages when I know the Church has edited the Bible to suit it's needs hardly outweighs the majority of the teachings inherent to Jesus' actions and sayings. I'm no fan of Christianity, the problems it has caused, and that sort of thing, but uh...Jesus still has a lower kill count of 0.

Thirdly, a little historical perspective might be in order about the 'child raping' thing. Different times have different values and standards, and judging historical figures by current values is... unfair.

Sexually mature is sexually mature. Any civilization that would do otherwise should very well be considered to have an element of barbarism inherent to it. Hence the whole "disliked and illegal" thing, and how it only happened in select cultures because, well, these assholes also use the mentality of a rapist. The Romans had the whole "slaves" thing.

In the Greco-Roman world, for instance, pedophelia - gay pedophilia, even - was pretty common too, yet I don't see a lot of people discarding the entire Greco-Roman civilization because members of them practiced these, by current standards, dispicable acts.

Sum of the whole puts this to the same level as the Catholic church, and frankly, using this to try and counter my argument that Islam isn't peaceful is frankly quite stretching.

Funny thing is, the exact same thing then happened in the Roman church. Even heard of the Arians? The Cathars? Right.Except that in later centuries, anybody who was not christian was deemed unworthy of life. And that's a place Islam never went.

Look, dipshit, I'm not getting into a pissing contest over which was better or worse. I was merely pointing out the bullshit around the statement that Islam's teachings are peaceful, even today, when they have NEVER BEEN. Considering that you're wasting your time preaching to the choir, take a look back and read the context of the discussion.

Now look at TODAY, and see how Christianity has progresed from what it was, and Islam has gone from "Child-Rapin' Jesus" to "What The Fuck?"

See now, this is just dumb. While Islam rethoric is used to justify agression against Western culture, don't be a fool to assume that the hatred a lot of Muslims feel for the West stems from the teachings of Islam.
Instead, look for more rational reasons: resentment against historical colonialism, present day economical imperialism, and good old classic class struggle.

No, what is utterly fucking retarded is your leap of logic to branch how I was pointing out how both religions have progressed into today's current forms, with Christianity winning the "more civilized" award, into mouth-stuffing me about why Islam hates the western world, when I have similarly pointed out the very same thing you did in another thread. Does Christianity have entire sects that practice the gender mutilation of women, POPULATION-WIDE? Or anything that bad?

In fact, I can tell you EXACTLY why Al-Quaeda and others hate the US. Remember Reagan's two-faced "War on Drugs" and his stupid old bat's campaign of "Just Say No" that created problems in families over nothing? Guess what they did? They funded Al-Quaeda, with drugs and arms to tear apart Afghanistan to put it under their control, as some way to fight against the Soviet Union in any form. While on the domestic US front, criminalized marijuana to severe points, while making cocaine and crack even more widespread and cheaper. It is also no surprise that DC was the Coke District of Columbia. Again, I think I have already mentioned this.

So now Afghanis really don't like the US for how we've helped turn their country into a shithole, and I can't blame them for being irate with the US in any form, considering we just went in and bombed them again for one guy we still can't even catch. Other countries now have to smile at the US diplomatically because they now have a load of political refugees to overlook, and they can't say ill of it. Yes, I know the US isn't exactly winning any popularity contests over in the Mid-East, and even those who we have supposedly "saved" have absolutely no reason to like us for turning their country into a shithole, something most westerners wouldn't know unless their 7-11 stopped carrying their favorite Slurpee flavor.

And then we elect a whole new asshole who does the same exact thing.

Reacting to entire cultures based on emotions, generalisations and biased information is pretty easy. Put some actual thought into it, and things take on a whole different perspective.

Irony. And you decide to try and stuff words, while also trying to skew...hell, I'm not even sure you're reading the same damn thread at this point. I'm not even going to bother to dice apart the rest of the insanity, just where this little spree diverted from reason.

Judas Iscariot: Again, just like your inane little rant about anti-aliasing in regards to a POV interpreting graphics engine, you still display jack shit in understanding context.

 

[Jebus]

I was referring to the modern western civilization. Duh.

Don't 'duh' me, little one. You were not simply reffering to western civilization - you were equating civilization to westernness. Don't try to squirm out of it.

I judge a civilization's level od development by affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld,

Materialism, individualism and centalised government. This had me laughing out loud, because those are exactly thé Western values, and you have just completely proven my point. There are other cultures, you see, that would list, for instance, contemplation before that (Buddhism). If you consider Buddhists to be morally reprehensible because they don't care about affluence (deprivation of physical comforts and the elimination of the simple desire of things is a basic given of Buddhism) and don't have the same view of human rights as we do - then that's your problem. Because that makes you a racist and a xenophobe, not the idealist world-improver you obviously percieve yourself to be.

and by those criteria the western civilization *is* currently the pinnacle of human achievment.

Tell that to the vast majority of Westerners that lives below the poverty line (and who thus not share in that 'affluence'), or those that are denied human rights (civil rights for Americans, for instance, or those millions upon millions that are denied the right to work). If you consider the current Western system to live up to and completely fullfill your values, then you, my friend, live in a dreamworld.

Secondly, those values might work perfectly for you (apparently) - but it'd do shit for, for instance, our friends the Papoa-New-Guineans. There's a reason why the West has persistenly failed to colonize the area for centuries - because Western civilization simply does not work there. Does this mean Papoea-New-Guineans are 'barbarians'? Yes, in your eyes. Sed quisque est barbarus aliquo.

So you are saying if majority of people in a certain society don't find an action morally reprehensible, then that action isn't morally reprehensible in the society? I'm sorry, but such concept is alien and repulsive to me.

Of course such concept is 'alien and repulsive' to you. Such concept is 'alien and repulsive' to everybody. No matter how much I and other peole rationalise it, I will always find cannibalism and pedhopelia morally reprehensible. Because that is our culture.

But it isn' theirs. Other cultures might find my love of items, my pre-marital sex, my love of violence (as long as is doesn't happen to me), my rampant pollution (even if I concisously try to limit it as much as I can) and my fetishism for money to be completely morally repulsive, but I don't feel evil. And you don't think I'm evil. And my culture will never judge me: in the eyes of you, me and everyone around me, I am by the values of my society a good, honest man.

I believe in universal morality same way I believe in existence of God, and no sociological hypothesis will make me question that belief.

Then I feel sorry for you. For there is no such thing as universal morality. Even between two persons in the same culture, morality differs greatly. My girlfriend, for instance, finds the fact that I eat meat morally reprehensible. I find the fact that my uncle, an industrialist, regularly fires his workers in order to gain a greater profit morally reprehensible. But I don't feel any guilt for eating meat, and my uncle doesn't feel any guilt (I think) for firing workers that don't live up to his expectations. Why? Because I follow the set of morals that suits my person in my very own sub-culture, and my uncle follows the morals of his very own sub-culture (that of die-hard capitalists). And untill the morals of my girlfriend (vegetarianism) are adapted and internalised by the majority of my society, I shall never feel guilty for eating meat nor shall my society judge me for it. Same thing happened with child labour, same thing happened with violence, and same thing happened with pedophelia. I'm sorry for you, but one day you will most likely come to this insight too. Missonairies and colonizers used to think that there was something like 'universal morality' too, and look at what that led to. Foreign societies that did not follow our 'superiour' Western values were subsequently enslaved, suppressed, genocided and 'converted' - and now all we can do is mourn for the destruction of beatiful ancient cultures ( the Aztecs or the Mayas spring to mind) - and hope to defend ourselves against the hatred of those that our society had done wrong. There's the prime source of terrorism for you - the fact that the majority of people in the west feel the *exact same way* about universal morality as you.

It is in human nature to enjoy violence,

IS it in human nature to enjoy violence? Buddhist monks don't enjoy violence. My mother nor my girlfriend enjoy violence - not in any possible form. It is not in human nature to enjoy violence - it is in our cultural nature to enjoy violence.

but that doesn't make violence any less immoral or unacceptable.

Oh rly? How about murder in self-defense, then? Is that immoral? According to me, no. According to you, most likely not too. According to our culture, not at all. According to Buddhism, yes. According to Jesus, yes.

Different values = different morals.

The extent to which a society is willing to tolerate violence only testifies to how (un)developed, from ethical perspective, that society is.

In that case, our culture is woefully ethically underdeveloped.

That said, I don't consider modern-day violent sports immoral, because they are consensual and their purposes are, in essence, harmless - health and entertainment. Same goes for violent entertainment in general.

Hah. No matter what level of consensus and entertainment is involved in boxing, for instance - it is still violence. Boxers still feel pain when they get hit. And we laugh and cheer. We laugh and cheer because another person gets hurt. A lot of different cultures, or sub-cultures within our own society, would consider that to be very much immoral.
I don't, though, and neither do you - because that's our set of values. But not everyones. You and me might be very well considered morally disgusting by a shitload of people.
But not by ourselves or the majority of our culture.

And as I said above, I don't buy into this "relative morals" nonsense. As far as I am concerned, "values and morals are dependant on the needs of the social group" is another way of saying "some social groups are more primitive and barbaric than others".

Quick, go colonize something.

Pedophilia: At the age of fourteen, most girls are already capable of conceiving. In human societies of old, this was the sole criteria of adulthood and eligibility for marriage.

Children were sexually abused and married before they were even fourteen over the entire world until only relatively recently

Back then, people knew nothing of psychological processes that occur in adolescence and are as integral part of becoming an adult as physical development.

Nooooo, of course not. Because adults were never children and children would stay children all their life.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. It is a psychological illness, an unnatural condition. A sexual act with a child is immoral abuse, plain and simple, because one of the participants is simply incapable of comprehending the nature of the act and thus incapable of objectively consenting to it.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here... Those are YOUR values, ffs. MY values. Not everyones.

The Bible doesn't explicitely prohibit pedophilia, but it prohibits and condemns child abuse, and pedophilia is just that.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:10, King James Version)

[/quote]

That's Matthew 18:6

And taken out of context, too:

4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

It doesn't condemn pedophelia or child abuse.

 

[Brother None]

Pretty much all this has to do with is context. If you take a passage out and put it in a place where it isn't meant to go, it just sounds ridiculous and does contradict...

True for a number of them. But calling God merciful in one bit of the book and a War God in another is something you can't quite get around.

And the large number of factual contradictions aren't contextual either. Who was Joseph's father? Who was at the empty grave? How many times did the cock crow? How can you trust a book that can't agree with itself on such little facts?

And the two different sermons on the mount, woooheee, that's explosive stuff right there.

But isn't the Bible the word of God??

Then God is a lousy writer/teller.

A novelist who filled his thriller with so many contradictions would not survive the critics.

Sexually mature is sexually mature.

Really?

In the Netherlands, it is illegal for a person between the ages 16-18 to have sex with a person between the ages 14-18, if one is above 18 the other has to be above 16.

Morally reprehensible?

Materialism, individualism and centalised government. This had me laughing out loud, because those are exactly thé Western values, and you have just completely proven my point. There are other cultures, you see, that would list, for instance, contemplation before that (Buddhism). If you consider Buddhists to be morally reprehensible because they don't care about affluence (deprivation of physical comforts and the elimination of the simple desire of things is a basic given of Buddhism) and don't have the same view of human rights as we do - then that's your problem. Because that makes you a racist and a xenophobe, not the idealist world-improver you obviously percieve yourself to be.

Aye, an important point world-improvers, like Bush, often forget is that improving the world does not mean westernising it. For some people the thought of living as rich, bountiful and corrupted as us isn't attractive.

For most it is, though. Most Africans would rather live like us than in their "primitive community", I'm willing to bet.

I was referring to the modern western civilization. Duh. I judge a civilization's level od development by affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld, and by those criteria the western civilization *is* currently the pinnacle of human achievment.

But Ratty's post hides an important other point. Moral relativism is fine, you need to keep a perspective to keep yourself from going sword-in-hand spreading the truth to those poor infidels like the Islamists, pretty much the pinnacle of non-moral relativism.

However, we live atop of values that took a long time to build up. We no longer appreciate them because we didn't help build them up, we're simply leeching them in. They are worth defending, though, from our perspective they're more worth defending than other cultural values, including (radical) islam.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I was referring to the modern western civilization. Duh.

Don't 'duh' me, little one. You were not simply reffering to western civilization - you were equating civilization to westernness. Don't try to squirm out of it.

I was equating *modern* civilization with westerness. If you can find me a society (*present-day* society) that is more developed and enlightened than the western society and societies that became westernized, I will gladly concede to your point.

Materialism, individualism and centalised government. This had me laughing out loud, because those are exactly thé Western values, and you have just completely proven my point. There are other cultures, you see, that would list, for instance, contemplation before that (Buddhism). If you consider Buddhists to be morally reprehensible because they don't care about affluence (deprivation of physical comforts and the elimination of the simple desire of things is a basic given of Buddhism) and don't have the same view of human rights as we do - then that's your problem. Because that makes you a racist and a xenophobe, not the idealist world-improver you obviously percieve yourself to be.

You know, if you are going to deliberately twist my words and take them out of context, I will terminate this discussion right now.

Firstly, I stated that western civilization represents the pinnacle of human development. Either offer an example that proves me wrong or shut up.

Secondly, I never stated that western civilization respresents the pinnacle of *ethical* development, even though I believe it does, and more importantly, I never said anything about morality of western values. So you can take the Buddhist example and stow it.

Finally, I said nothing that would even remotely imply that I purport to be a world-improving idealist, mainly because I don't, and am quite frankly disappointed that you would make up such a pathetic claim in what is supposed to be a serious debate. I believe that improving the world begins with improving myself, and to go beyond that means to arrogantly tread into the domain of deities and their favorites.

Tell that to the vast majority of Westerners that lives below the poverty line (and who thus not share in that 'affluence'), or those that are denied human rights (civil rights for Americans, for instance, or those millions upon millions that are denied the right to work). If you consider the current Western system to live up to and completely fullfill your values, then you, my friend, live in a dreamworld.

Western civilization is the pinnacle of human development. That is what I said and what you failed to address, opting to go off on an irrelevant tangent about how there are people in the West who are denied civil rights. No shit, Maradona, and here I was thinking the West was the new Garden of Eden.

Secondly, those values might work perfectly for you (apparently) - but it'd do shit for, for instance, our friends the Papoa-New-Guineans. There's a reason why the West has persistenly failed to colonize the area for centuries - because Western civilization simply does not work there. Does this mean Papoea-New-Guineans are 'barbarians'? Yes, in your eyes. Sed quisque est barbarus aliquo.

Exactly, I consider them more barbaric than me. You finally got it.

Of course such concept is 'alien and repulsive' to you. Such concept is 'alien and repulsive' to everybody. No matter how much I and other peole rationalise it, I will always find cannibalism and pedhopelia morally reprehensible. Because that is our culture.

But it isn' theirs. Other cultures might find my love of items, my pre-marital sex, my love of violence (as long as is doesn't happen to me), my rampant pollution (even if I concisously try to limit it as much as I can) and my fetishism for money to be completely morally repulsive, but I don't feel evil. And you don't think I'm evil. And my culture will never judge me: in the eyes of you, me and everyone around me, I am by the values of my society a good, honest man.

Precisely, by the values of society you are a good, honest man. By the values of universal morality, you are that, but only partially. But since you don't believe in universal morality, you have no reason to care. Period.

Then I feel sorry for you. For there is no such thing as universal morality. Even between two persons in the same culture, morality differs greatly. My girlfriend, for instance, finds the fact that I eat meat morally reprehensible. I find the fact that my uncle, an industrialist, regularly fires his workers in order to gain a greater profit morally reprehensible. But I don't feel any guilt for eating meat, and my uncle doesn't feel any guilt (I think) for firing workers that don't live up to his expectations. Why? Because I follow the set of morals that suits my person in my very own sub-culture, and my uncle follows the morals of his very own sub-culture (that of die-hard capitalists). And untill the morals of my girlfriend (vegetarianism) are adapted and internalised by the majority of my society, I shall never feel guilty for eating meat nor shall my society judge me for it. Same thing happened with child labour, same thing happened with violence, and same thing happened with pedophelia. I'm sorry for you, but one day you will most likely come to this insight too.

Doubtful. I have adopted my present beliefs over the years. I am 21 years old now, and I sincerely doubt they will change radically between now and the day I die - though they will change for certain. I won't attempt to argue what you said, because it would be rather pointless. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I do, however, resent your statement that I will one day "most likely come to this insight too". Guess what, as a college student at a tender age of 19 (give or take a year) you aren't a supreme holder of any universal truths and by no merit may you be condescending to people whose views differ from yours.

Missonairies and colonizers used to think that there was something like 'universal morality' too, and look at what that led to. Foreign societies that did not follow our 'superiour' Western values were subsequently enslaved, suppressed, genocided and 'converted' - and now all we can do is mourn for the destruction of beatiful ancient cultures ( the Aztecs or the Mayas spring to mind) - and hope to defend ourselves against the hatred of those that our society had done wrong. There's the prime source of terrorism for you - the fact that the majority of people in the west feel the *exact same way* about universal morality as you.

It is immoral to forcingly try and impose your own moral values upon someone else.

IS it in human nature to enjoy violence? Buddhist monks don't enjoy violence. My mother nor my girlfriend enjoy violence - not in any possible form. It is not in human nature to enjoy violence - it is in our cultural nature to enjoy violence.

Then they have learned to overcome a primordial aspect of their nature. Good for them.

Make no mistake, if one is raised in a society that has rooted out violence, they will be pacifist as well. But man is a creature that possesses certain insticts, some of which are violent. These instincts can be suppressed, but no human being is without them. Give one of these monks to Securitate, and they can turn him into a bloodthirsty killing machine before you know it.

Oh rly? How about murder in self-defense, then? Is that immoral? According to me, no. According to you, most likely not too. According to our culture, not at all. According to Buddhism, yes. According to Jesus, yes.

Actually, by the example set by Jesus Christ, it *is* immoral. Obviously, I defend my own life by any means necessary, but this only shows I am fallible as a person and not quite prepared to live by the "turn the other cheek" principle.

In that case, our culture is woefully ethically underdeveloped.

Precisely.

Hah. No matter what level of consensus and entertainment is involved in boxing, for instance - it is still violence. Boxers still feel pain when they get hit. And we laugh and cheer. We laugh and cheer because another person gets hurt. A lot of different cultures, or sub-cultures within our own society, would consider that to be very much immoral.

If you ask me, there is nothing immoral about cheering when a boxer gets hurt. After all, the boxer who is fighting in that ring is doing so on purpose and in fact *expects* his audience to cheer. That one enjoys such entertainment merely indicates lack of personal culture, nothing else.

Nooooo, of course not. Because adults were never children and children would stay children all their life.

What I mean is this - in the past, a person was considered an adult as soon as they were able to have children. This included adolescents.

It doesn't condemn pedophelia or child abuse.

Look again:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

If that doesn't prohibit child abuse, I don't know what does.

 

[Sander]

Roshambo, are you now arguing that Islam is a violent religion because everyone considers Mohammed to be the pinnacle of good behavior?
Because if so, I'd say that that makes the teachings of Islam not violent, but that people are stupid enough to look toward the quill of Allah instead of the writings of Allah.

 

[John Uskglass]

Because if so, I'd say that that makes the teachings of Islam not violent, but that people are stupid enough to look toward the quill of Allah instead of the writings of Allah.

Have you ever read the Koran?
I don't entirely agree with any position here anymore, but to be fair a lot of the Koran deals with Muhammed's personal life pretty obviously. For instance, Muhammed chastizes his wifes for bitching about him fucking a Coptic slave girl, Maria al-Qibtiyya.

 

[Jebus]

I'll reply to you later, Rosh, because this is just way too much fun.

I was equating *modern* civilization with westerness. If you can find me a society (*present-day* society) that is more developed and enlightened than the western society and societies that became westernized, I will gladly concede to your point.

Are you doing this on purpose? Because you're really making this easy for me.

Development and enlightenment = Western values.

Do you even think before you write this shit down?

Plus, you are a liar. You were equating *all* civilization with westerness. Because this is what you wrote:

I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs

Which cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way than that you consider 'Muslims' (about a billion or so people, I guess) uncivilized, and by extension all muslim cultures uncivilized; and by saying 'adopting western values' you thus equate all civilization to Westerness.
You remind me of the Vlaams Belang, our very own Belgian nazi party. First they go spouting all kinds of racism, and when they are then backed into a corner they go squirming like a rat trying to convince others that wasn't what they meant. Hey, perhaps that's where your nick 'Ratty' comes from?

You know, if you are going to deliberately twist my words and take them out of context, I will terminate this discussion right now.

It is I that twists your words? You little shit, it's you that keep on twisting your own words. Don't insult my intelligence.

Firstly, I stated that western civilization represents the pinnacle of human development. Either offer an example that proves me wrong or shut up.

Secondly, I never stated that western civilization respresents the pinnacle of *ethical* development, even though I believe it does, and more importantly, I never said anything about morality of western values. So you can take the Buddhist example and stow it.

See, this is just weak. *Weak*. We were having a discussion on ethics and morals, and suddenly your statement that 'Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement' has nothing to do with morality? Then what the hell was that comment related to? Technology? Chewing gum? Bruce Springsteen? Don't bullshit me.

Finally, I said nothing that would even remotely imply that I purport to be a world-improving idealist, mainly because I don't, and am quite frankly disappointed that you would make up such a pathetic claim in what is supposed to be a serious debate. I believe that improving the world begins with improving myself, and to go beyond that means to arrogantly tread into the domain of deities and their favorites.

So you say that 'improving the world begins with improving myself', and then you go criticizing other cultures? What kind of fucked up logic is that? You stand on the moral high-ground of your own cultural values, trying to enlighten the rest of us, poor critters, who do not live up to your moral standards and follow your ethical views, and you don't call yourself an idealist world-improver? If the only thing you want to do is to improve yourself, then you have to SHUT UP ABOUT OTHERS. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk - and don't start claiming foul when other people talk ànd walk. And now take a walk and stop talking, before I walk all over you.

Dipshit.

Western civilization is the pinnacle of human development. That is what I said and what you failed to address, opting to go off on an irrelevant tangent about how there are people in the West who are denied civil rights. No shit, Maradona, and here I was thinking the West was the new Garden of Eden.

Ratty, you said Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement by the criteria of 'affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld'. I adress that point by saying that it's far from so, by pointing out that a vast portion of those living under Western culture don't share in these 'goodies' of Western civilization - and you call that irrelevant? What the fuck are you trying to pull?

Exactly, I consider them more barbaric than me. You finally got it.

And you seem to be proud of it too. Good boy. You should consider changing your political affinity from left-wing to nazism, because your ideas seem to lie closer to theirs.

Of course such concept is 'alien and repulsive' to you. Such concept is 'alien and repulsive' to everybody. No matter how much I and other peole rationalise it, I will always find cannibalism and pedhopelia morally reprehensible. Because that is our culture.

But it isn' theirs. Other cultures might find my love of items, my pre-marital sex, my love of violence (as long as is doesn't happen to me), my rampant pollution (even if I concisously try to limit it as much as I can) and my fetishism for money to be completely morally repulsive, but I don't feel evil. And you don't think I'm evil. And my culture will never judge me: in the eyes of you, me and everyone around me, I am by the values of my society a good, honest man.

Precisely, by the values of society you are a good, honest man. By the values of universal morality, you are that, but only partially. But since you don't believe in universal morality, you have no reason to care. Period.

Haha. So, what defines 'universal morality' then? Or more importantly, who defines 'universal morality' then? You?

Then I feel sorry for you. For there is no such thing as universal morality. Even between two persons in the same culture, morality differs greatly. My girlfriend, for instance, finds the fact that I eat meat morally reprehensible. I find the fact that my uncle, an industrialist, regularly fires his workers in order to gain a greater profit morally reprehensible. But I don't feel any guilt for eating meat, and my uncle doesn't feel any guilt (I think) for firing workers that don't live up to his expectations. Why? Because I follow the set of morals that suits my person in my very own sub-culture, and my uncle follows the morals of his very own sub-culture (that of die-hard capitalists). And untill the morals of my girlfriend (vegetarianism) are adapted and internalised by the majority of my society, I shall never feel guilty for eating meat nor shall my society judge me for it. Same thing happened with child labour, same thing happened with violence, and same thing happened with pedophelia. I'm sorry for you, but one day you will most likely come to this insight too.

Doubtful. I have adopted my present beliefs over the years. I am 21 years old now, and I sincerely doubt they will change radically between now and the day I die - though they will change for certain. I won't attempt to argue what you said, because it would be rather pointless. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

Way to dance around the point.

Oh, and now you're suddenly declaring that you 'won't attempt to argue what you said, because it would be rather pointless'? Then why the hell did you jump into this discussion in the first place? Why the hell did you attack my views? Don't try to back out of a discussion when things are not going your way, friend, because it's unbecoming.

I do, however, resent your statement that I will one day "most likely come to this insight too". Guess what, as a college student at a tender age of 19 (give or take a year) you aren't a supreme holder of any universal truths and by no merit may you be condescending to people whose views differ from yours.

I'm as old as you are, ass, don't make assumptions.

Oh, and I don't have the right to be condescending to people whose views differ from mine, but you have the right to call other cultures barbaric, you're allowed to call my views 'alien and repulsive', and call my take on morals 'nonsense'?

Double standards, perhaps? You like double standards, don't you? You seem to apply it to everything around you.

Missonairies and colonizers used to think that there was something like 'universal morality' too, and look at what that led to. Foreign societies that did not follow our 'superiour' Western values were subsequently enslaved, suppressed, genocided and 'converted' - and now all we can do is mourn for the destruction of beatiful ancient cultures ( the Aztecs or the Mayas spring to mind) - and hope to defend ourselves against the hatred of those that our society had done wrong. There's the prime source of terrorism for you - the fact that the majority of people in the west feel the *exact same way* about universal morality as you.

It is immoral to forcingly try and impose your own moral values upon someone else.

Oh, and imposing your morals on historical figures and declaring them evil, perverted and depraved because they didn't follow them is not immoral? Imposing Western values on Muslims so they can become 'civilized' in not immoral?

IS it in human nature to enjoy violence? Buddhist monks don't enjoy violence. My mother nor my girlfriend enjoy violence - not in any possible form. It is not in human nature to enjoy violence - it is in our cultural nature to enjoy violence.

Then they have learned to overcome a primordial aspect of their nature. Good for them.

The enjoyment of violence is *not* a primordial aspect of human nature. Most females don't enjoy violence.

Make no mistake, if one is raised in a society that has rooted out violence, they will be pacifist as well. But man is a creature that possesses certain insticts, some of which are violent. These instincts can be suppressed, but no human being is without them. Give one of these monks to Securitate, and they can turn him into a bloodthirsty killing machine before you know it.

Wow me, by saying that morals are dependant on education and social structures you are *really* disproving my points!

Oh rly? How about murder in self-defense, then? Is that immoral? According to me, no. According to you, most likely not too. According to our culture, not at all. According to Buddhism, yes. According to Jesus, yes.

Actually, by the example set by Jesus Christ, it *is* immoral. Obviously, I defend my own life by any means necessary, but this only shows I am fallible as a person and not quite prepared to live by the "turn the other cheek" principle.

Wait - so if Western culture doesn't follow certain rules of your self-declared 'universal morality' it's okey, because hey - we're only human; but if some guy and millennium and a half ago and the culture that sprang from him don't follow all your self-defined rules, they are morally reprehensible?

There's only two solutions to this, friend: either you learn to take perspective on things, or you have to declare Western culture morally reprehensible as well and go live in a cave somewhere.

Make sure not to take your computer with you.

In that case, our culture is woefully ethically underdeveloped.

Precisely.

Then what the *fuck* gives you the right to look down on other cultures because they don't follow your set of rules, or what sane reason would there be to force people of another culture to adapt our values, when we're just as morally depraved as them?

Because they are ours?

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

If that doesn't prohibit child abuse, I don't know what does.

I'm not going to go into bible studies here, but in my humble interpretation it seems to me that Jesus meant that if anyone took advantage of the pacifism of one who followed this teachings and acted as innocent as a child should be ashamed of himself.

But the problem with this bible stuff is, of course, that there's a million ways to interpret this.

Hah. No matter what level of consensus and entertainment is involved in boxing, for instance - it is still violence. Boxers still feel pain when they get hit. And we laugh and cheer. We laugh and cheer because another person gets hurt. A lot of different cultures, or sub-cultures within our own society, would consider that to be very much immoral.

If you ask me, there is nothing immoral about cheering when a boxer gets hurt. After all, the boxer who is fighting in that ring is doing so on purpose and in fact *expects* his audience to cheer. That one enjoys such entertainment merely indicates lack of personal culture, nothing else.

Oh wait, so violence is not morally reprehensible if there is consensus? So your statement that 'any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible' (your exact words) is untrue? Because it depends on certain variables? So that value is relative?

My my friend, it seems that I am not the moral relativist here, *you* are.

 

[Brother None]

Oh wait, so violence is not morally reprehensible if there is consensus? So your statement that 'any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible' (your exact words) is untrue? Because it depends on certain variables? So that value is relative?

This reminds me of a philosophical problem my old philosophy teacher once put before the class; if a boxer kills another boxer in the ring, it's considered a damned shame, but the boxer is not punisheably in any way. If two men sign a contract stating that they're going into a fight and one might well die but the other should not be held accountable, the other will be put in prison for manslaughter.

Why? Because one has society's consensus behind it and the other doesn't.

 

[Sander]

Because if so, I'd say that that makes the teachings of Islam not violent, but that people are stupid enough to look toward the quill of Allah instead of the writings of Allah.

Have you ever read the Koran?
I don't entirely agree with any position here anymore, but to be fair a lot of the Koran deals with Muhammed's personal life pretty obviously. For instance, Muhammed chastizes his wifes for bitching about him fucking a Coptic slave girl, Maria al-Qibtiyya.

You might want to read my entire post. Mainly because there was a condition, the condition that if Rosh was arguing that, then...

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Are you doing this on purpose? Because you're really making this easy for me.

Development and enlightenment = Western values.

Do you even think before you write this shit down?

They are? I had the impression that development and enlightenment were values of any society that isn't stagnant and primitive.

Plus, you are a liar. You were equating *all* civilization with westerness. Because this is what you wrote:

Are you blind or just dense?

I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs

Notice the a? Obviously it implies that the West is just one instance of civilization. Historically, Muslim world was *more* civilized than what we call the West. But today, just about any civilized society is primarily civilized through traits and bonds it shares with the West. Ever heard of globalization?

Which cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way than that you consider 'Muslims' (about a billion or so people, I guess) uncivilized, and by extension all muslim cultures uncivilized; and by saying 'adopting western values' you thus equate all civilization to Westerness.

That is clearly not the case. I never wrote Muslims were uncivilized. I would need to be utterly ignorant on history to claim such a thing, considering throughout most of the Middle Ages Muslim societies were *ahead* of the West on development scale and that many of our own values were introduced into our societies through contacts with with the Arab and Turk world. Perhaps I expressed my thoughts inadequately in an effort to contrast the cruelty and barbarism of islamist fanatics and their ilk with Muslim immigrants in the West and democratic, stable and liberal Muslim societies such as Bosnia and Jordan (Examples which I cited, yet you seem to purposefully neglect them and stuff my mouth with bullshit claims that Muslims need to be living in the West to be considered civilized. And before you now jump on me with unfounded accusations, right now I didn't say that Bosnia and Jordan are the the only civilized Muslim societies, only that they are the most developed).

You remind me of the Vlaams Belang, our very own Belgian nazi party. First they go spouting all kinds of racism, and when they are then backed into a corner they go squirming like a rat trying to convince others that wasn't what they meant. Hey, perhaps that's where your nick 'Ratty' comes from?

And you remind me of CCR of old, only on the opposing side of political spectrum.

It is I that twists your words? You little shit, it's you that keep on twisting your own words. Don't insult my intelligence.

I constantly have to struggle trying to explain every minor point in my posts. I don't *need* to insult your intelligence, because you accomplish that yourself hell of a lot better than I ever could. Either that, or you are doing it on purpose, which is considered trolling.

See, this is just weak. *Weak*. We were having a discussion on ethics and morals, and suddenly your statement that 'Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement' has nothing to do with morality? Then what the hell was that comment related to? Technology? Chewing gum? Bruce Springsteen? Don't bullshit me.

The discussion thread about Western civilization started with this:

See, this is just bad. BAD.

1. Western != civilized. China was civilized long before the West was, and civilization in Western Eurasia started in the Middle East. Unless you aren't using 'civilized' in its actual meaning here, and by 'civilized' actually mean Western, in which case you're just a racist asshole.

2. Pacifism and stability are in no way Western values. Instead; conquest, war, 'heroism' and power are. Learn your history. There's only one kind of culture I can think of that actually has pacifism as a value, and that's buddhism.

3. Western culture is not superiour to any other kind of culture, and should not be held up as the pinnacle of human achievement.
What, are you still stuck in the colonial age?

I don't see any mention of morals here, except some flirting with the issue in point 2. If you are going to debate something, at least try to keep up.

So you say that 'improving the world begins with improving myself', and then you go criticizing other cultures? What kind of fucked up logic is that? You stand on the moral high-ground of your own cultural values, trying to enlighten the rest of us, poor critters, who do not live up to your moral standards and follow your ethical views, and you don't call yourself an idealist world-improver? If the only thing you want to do is to improve yourself, then you have to SHUT UP ABOUT OTHERS. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk - and don't start claiming foul when other people talk ànd walk. And now take a walk and stop talking, before I walk all over you.

Dipshit.

What does "criticizing other cultures" on a fucking Internet forum have to do with improving the world, asswipe? You essentially accused me of imposing my morals upon the world and then, when I assert that forcing one's morals upon someone else in unacceptable, you accuse me of the exact same thing? Guess what, moron, criticizing a culture for its faults isn't the same as trying to "improve the world". In fact, just because it seems to annoy you, I will state it again: a society where it's acceptable to fuck a child, rape a woman and kill innocents isn't much of a society, and to claim that values of such a society are equal to our own values is pure bullshit. Now relativize that. Or better yet, go to some remote community in Iran or Afghanistan and see how their "values" affect lives of women. Also make sure to wave a Belgian visa in face of a wife who is about to be stoned to death or who was just raped by her own husband and see if she agrees with you on the issue of her society being equally civilized as your own.

Also, I'm not the one on a high ground - you are. Read your own posts and notice how they bristle with arrogance and aggression. Your pointless tangents, belligerent attitude and the way you deliberately twist everything and pull it out of context make you sound like a maniacal extremist. Quite frankly, they don't paint a very pretty picture of you.

Ratty, you said Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement by the criteria of 'affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld'. I adress that point by saying that it's far from so, by pointing out that a vast portion of those living under Western culture don't share in these 'goodies' of Western civilization - and you call that irrelevant? What the fuck are you trying to pull?

Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement on merit that no other civilization in the history of mankind has achieved that level of development. I never said it was perfect - far from it - only that it represents a pinnacle in human history to date.

And you seem to be proud of it too. Good boy. You should consider changing your political affinity from left-wing to nazism, because your ideas seem to lie closer to theirs.

Obviously you have no idea what Nazism is, then.

Haha. So, what defines 'universal morality' then? Or more importantly, who defines 'universal morality' then? You?

God.

Way to dance around the point.

Oh, and now you're suddenly declaring that you 'won't attempt to argue what you said, because it would be rather pointless'? Then why the hell did you jump into this discussion in the first place? Why the hell did you attack my views? Don't try to back out of a discussion when things are not going your way, friend, because it's unbecoming.

I criticized Islam. You criticized me for criticizing Islam. I said I believed in a universal set of morals. You said you didn't. I decided that further discussion of the issue would be pointless, because there is no way one of us will ever be able to change the other's beliefs. Yet you seem to insist on continuing this in an increasingly aggressive tone. Why?

I'm as old as you are, ass, don't make assumptions.

I knew we were around the same age. So you are two years older than I originally thought. Big difference.

Oh, and I don't have the right to be condescending to people whose views differ from mine, but you have the right to call other cultures barbaric, you're allowed to call my views 'alien and repulsive', and call my take on morals 'nonsense'?

They are barbaric from the perspective of our own civilization. Moral relativism *is* alien and repulsive *to me* - there is no malice in that statement of mine, I'm just being dead honest. As for the "nonsense" comment, it was in a facetious tone. I'm sorry if it offended you.

Oh, and imposing your morals on historical figures and declaring them evil, perverted and depraved because they didn't follow them is not immoral? Imposing Western values on Muslims so they can become 'civilized' in not immoral?

*I'm not trying to impose anything upon anyone.*

And yes, I'm free to declare a historical figure evil, perverted and depraved, same way you are free to call me an immoral hipocrite. With the important distinction that said historical figure *was*, by existing accounts, evil, perverted and depraved.

And hey, why do you presume to criticize me for it? If I have no right to criticize Muhammad for being a brigand and a sexual deviant, and Islam for being more controversial than other mainstream religions, then by what right do you criticize me for criticizing Muhammad for being a brigand and a sexual deviant, and Islam for being more controversial than other mainstream religions? "Double standards, perhaps? You like double standards, don't you? You seem to apply it to everything around you."

The enjoyment of violence is *not* a primordial aspect of human nature. Most females don't enjoy violence.

I agree.

Wow me, by saying that morals are dependant on education and social structures you are *really* disproving my points!

I'm not trying to disprove your points, mainly because your points can be neither proven nor disproven. Yes, people can be evil. They can denounce morals and become depraved. This was never an issue. It doesn't in any way prove or disprove existence of universal morals.

Wait - so if Western culture doesn't follow certain rules of your self-declared 'universal morality' it's okey, because hey - we're only human; but if some guy and millennium and a half ago and the culture that sprang from him don't follow all your self-defined rules, they are morally reprehensible?

There's only two solutions to this, friend: either you learn to take perspective on things, or you have to declare Western culture morally reprehensible as well and go live in a cave somewhere.

Make sure not to take your computer with you.

Western society is morally reprehensible in certain respects. Muslim societies are morally reprehensible as well in certain respects. Which part do you not understand?

Then what the *fuck* gives you the right to look down on other cultures because they don't follow your set of rules, or what sane reason would there be to force people of another culture to adapt our values, when we're just as morally depraved as them?

"We're just as morally depraved as them"? No, we aren't. Western societies have overcome many moral degeneracies of earlier human societies. And I'm not "looking down at other cultures". Rather, I view them from a critical standpoint. In case of Islam, it was a reaction to bullshit assertions that Islam is more peaceful and tolerant than Christianity.

If you think I ever so much as *implied* that our values should be forced upon anyone, then you are either a liar or an idiot. Pick your favorite.

I'm not going to go into bible studies here, but in my humble interpretation it seems to me that Jesus meant that if anyone took advantage of the pacifism of one who followed this teachings and acted as innocent as a child should be ashamed of himself.

But the problem with this bible stuff is, of course, that there's a million ways to interpret this.

Jesus basically said that whoever harms a child will be punished. Here "child" mean both a child in a literal sense (Jesus had a child beside him while uttering those words) and "child" as in someone who believes in him and is thus humble as a child.

Oh wait, so violence is not morally reprehensible if there is consensus? So your statement that 'any action or custom that inflicts harm upon someone is morally reprehensible' (your exact words) is untrue? Because it depends on certain variables? So that value is relative?

It isn't relative, but I phrased it inaccurately. Obviously.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

God.

The obvious question at this point would be how some kind of moral knowledge could pass from a metaphysical being to your person. Let alone Muhammed or (pre-holy trinity sillyness) Jesus.

 

[Roshambo]

Roshambo, are you now arguing that Islam is a violent religion because everyone considers Mohammed to be the pinnacle of good behavior?
Because if so, I'd say that that makes the teachings of Islam not violent, but that people are stupid enough to look toward the quill of Allah instead of the writings of Allah.

Again, I will note for going past the FIFTH TIME, that it is the Qu'uran's own writings that are reinforced by the Prophet's own actions and speakings. The Qu'uran initially starts fucked up and biased, no matter how much people want to spin it. You know, the book where it says a woman is expected to give herself to her husband no matter where, even on the back of a camel, and if she disagrees with him, he can talk to her, then deny her his presence in bed, then he can beat her.

Most apologists try to claim that it is the most "psychologically sound" behaviour in a relationship. Obviously, those people have never been in a relationship where the woman isn't psychologically repressed like most Islamic countries to keep believing that garbage.

That is just but one example I care to repeat myself on. Both this thread and the other linked to have good references on this subject. Islam is still not peaceful, on paper or in practice. When it comes to practice, then the mouthpiece speaks in both action, word, and writing, and that is taken as gospel just as others chronicled Jesus' actions, because actions spoke more than simple words. I think I mentioned that knives in the back was staple for the Prophet's times and the Prophet himself. So was lying while inserting the knife.

Development and enlightenment = Western values.

Do you even think before you write this shit down?

Funny, I could ask you the same, since concepts of "development" and "enlightenment" originated in certain locations long before the "West" amounted to a bunch of pillaging Anglo-Saxons, Gauls and Celts. Oh, and an empire or two that couldn't quite well be considered "enlightened". The whole Caligula thing, you know.

And I bet you think The Ten Wonders is a tour guide to the Eiffel tower, the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, etc.

And yet, you say that China was civilized long before the West was. Hmmm, I would think that the two most important parts of having a civilization are both development and social enlightenment. I agree, you're starting to really resemble the CCR of old.

 

[Jebus]

They are? I had the impression that development and enlightenment were values of any society that isn't stagnant and primitive.

One again, I refer you to the Buddhists.
They're turning out to be quite usefull, after all.

They have a stagnant society, yes. They are technologically somewhat primitive, yes. Do they care? No.

Plus, you are a liar. You were equating *all* civilization with westerness. Because this is what you wrote:

Are you blind or just dense?

I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs

Notice the a? Obviously it implies that the West is just one instance of civilization. Historically, Muslim world was *more* civilized than what we call the West.
[...]
That is clearly not the case. I never wrote Muslims were uncivilized. I would need to be utterly ignorant on history to claim such a thing, considering throughout most of the Middle Ages Muslim societies were *ahead* of the West on development scale and that many of our own values were introduced into our societies through contacts with with the Arab and Turk world.

Perhaps, but the fact that you say 'Muslims [...] integrate in a civilized society' more than implies that you consider them uncivilized beforehand - and the fact that you say that that is mainly because they have succeeded in 'adopting western values' more than implies that adopting western values is neccesary to integrate in a civilized society, which, in turn, implies that Western civilization is the only civilization.
Don't dance around.

But today, just about any civilized society is primarily civilized through traits and bonds it shares with the West. Ever heard of globalization?

Allright, let me help you a bit in stopping embarassing yourself:

civ·i·li·za·tion

1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Now, disregarding the fact that you constantly misuse the word 'civilized' - would you kindly care to explain to me how, say, Indonesia or China based their society primarily on western 'traits and bonds'?

Perhaps I expressed my thoughts inadequately in an effort to contrast the cruelty and barbarism of islamist fanatics and their ilk with Muslim immigrants in the West and democratic, stable and liberal Muslim societies such as Bosnia and Jordan

So everyone who doesn't live in the West (or Bosnia and Jordan) is an Islamist fanatic?

Look - we seem to have come to the point where you start bringing up the Islam extremists again. Extremists are assholes, you don't have to tell me that. Yet, if you are talking about Muslim extremists, be sure to actually *mention* the word 'extremists', and not just 'muslims'. Because otherwise you're only coming off as a racist goof.

(Examples which I cited, yet you seem to purposefully neglect them and stuff my mouth with bullshit claims that Muslims need to be living in the West to be considered civilized.

Dude, it's what you said. *Stop* trying to deny that.

And before you now jump on me with unfounded accusations, right now I didn't say that Bosnia and Jordan are the the only civilized Muslim societies, only that they are the most developed).

Heh heh. SO, what Muslim societies *aren't* civilized, then?

And you remind me of CCR of old, only on the opposing side of political spectrum.

I don't see how. I'm using rational, logical and scientific thought processes here - instead of calling shit evil and drawing short-sighted conclusions. Actually, that's more like the route you're taking.

I constantly have to struggle trying to explain every minor point in my posts.

No, you constantly have to struggle to get out from under your previous racist comments. There's a difference.

I don't *need* to insult your intelligence, because you accomplish that yourself hell of a lot better than I ever could.

Ooooh. Care to explain how?

See, this is just weak. *Weak*. We were having a discussion on ethics and morals, and suddenly your statement that 'Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement' has nothing to do with morality? Then what the hell was that comment related to? Technology? Chewing gum? Bruce Springsteen? Don't bullshit me.

The discussion thread about Western civilization started with this:

See, this is just bad. BAD.

1. Western != civilized. China was civilized long before the West was, and civilization in Western Eurasia started in the Middle East. Unless you aren't using 'civilized' in its actual meaning here, and by 'civilized' actually mean Western, in which case you're just a racist asshole.

2. Pacifism and stability are in no way Western values. Instead; conquest, war, 'heroism' and power are. Learn your history. There's only one kind of culture I can think of that actually has pacifism as a value, and that's buddhism.

3. Western culture is not superiour to any other kind of culture, and should not be held up as the pinnacle of human achievement.
What, are you still stuck in the colonial age?

I don't see any mention of morals here, except some flirting with the issue in point 2. If you are going to debate something, at least try to keep up.

You dance with the best of them, Ratty - but no dice.

The debate on Western civilization started with this:

I don't really consider Islam inherently evil, I just consider its teachings more inherently controversial and ambiguous than those of any other major religion, and thus more likely to be perverted and abused. When comparing the central Muslim figure - Muhammad - and the central Christian figure - Jesus Christ - I find that Muhammad is a person of questionable motives and morals, and therefore I strongly doubt any divine message he supposedly relayed. I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs. Take European Bosniaks, a Muslim nation known for their pacifism and liberalism. There are even examples of peaceful, stable and pluralist Islamic societies in the Middle East - Jordan, for instance.

Which is about morals and values. In that light, my reply is *clearly* about morals and values too - even if I don't mention the words 'values' or 'morals' too often. And your full sentence was:

I judge a civilization's level od development by affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld, and by those criteria the western civilization *is* currently the pinnacle of human achievment.

First you list some values, and they you write 'by those criteria'. Dude. Who *are* you trying to fool?

So you say that 'improving the world begins with improving myself', and then you go criticizing other cultures? What kind of fucked up logic is that? You stand on the moral high-ground of your own cultural values, trying to enlighten the rest of us, poor critters, who do not live up to your moral standards and follow your ethical views, and you don't call yourself an idealist world-improver? If the only thing you want to do is to improve yourself, then you have to SHUT UP ABOUT OTHERS. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk - and don't start claiming foul when other people talk ànd walk. And now take a walk and stop talking, before I walk all over you.

Dipshit.

What does "criticizing other cultures" on a fucking Internet forum have to do with improving the world, asswipe? You essentially accused me of imposing my morals upon the world and then, when I assert that forcing one's morals upon someone else in unacceptable, you accuse me of the exact same thing? Guess what, moron, criticizing a culture for its faults isn't the same as trying to "improve the world".

Aaaaaand... another dance.

The fact that you desperately trying to convince me of the superiourity of western values is acting like an 'idealist world-improver', yes - no matter how deluded it might be. The fact that you aren't actually *doing* anything doesn't matter, I'm talking about state of mind here. Don't act like you don't know that.

In fact, just because it seems to annoy you, I will state it again: a society where it's acceptable to fuck a child, rape a woman and kill innocents isn't much of a society, and to claim that values of such a society are equal to our own values is pure bullshit. Now relativize that.

See, you are the one putting bullshit claims into my mouth. I never said that those values were equal to our own. Either you are incredibly dumb or incredibly pig-headed, but you *constantly* seem to miss my point. I feel like I'm talking to a ten-year-old here.

Or better yet, go to some remote community in Iran or Afghanistan and see how their "values" affect lives of women. Also make sure to wave a Belgian visa in face of a wife who is about to be stoned to death or who was just raped by her own husband and see if she agrees with you on the issue of her society being equally civilized as your own.

... and you missed my point again. Too bad, as you could really be learning something.

Also, I'm not the one on a high ground - you are. Read your own posts and notice how they bristle with arrogance and aggression. Your pointless tangents, belligerent attitude and the way you deliberately twist everything and pull it out of context make you sound like a maniacal extremist. Quite frankly, they don't paint a very pretty picture of you.

Let me give you a few quotes from your previous posts:

Either offer an example that proves me wrong or shut up.

So you can take the Buddhist example and stow it.

and am quite frankly disappointed that you would make up such a pathetic claim in what is supposed to be a serious debate

Guess what, as a college student at a tender age of 19 (give or take a year) you aren't a supreme holder of any universal truths

such concept is alien and repulsive to me.

I don't buy into this "relative morals" nonsense.

And I'm the agressive one? Heeeerrrre come the double standards again!
And, as I said before, you are the one twisting your own words.

Again, nice try though.

Ratty, you said Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement by the criteria of 'affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld'. I adress that point by saying that it's far from so, by pointing out that a vast portion of those living under Western culture don't share in these 'goodies' of Western civilization - and you call that irrelevant? What the fuck are you trying to pull?

Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement on merit that no other civilization in the history of mankind has achieved that level of development. I never said it was perfect - far from it - only that it represents a pinnacle in human history to date.

Yes, I KNOW. Dude.

My point was: do you think it matters to those people wether they are being opressed, starving and freezig to death in the West or in an Islamic nation? Do you think théy consider Western society to be the pinnacle of human achievement?

And you seem to be proud of it too. Good boy. You should consider changing your political affinity from left-wing to nazism, because your ideas seem to lie closer to theirs.

Obviously you have no idea what Nazism is, then.

Nazism was largely based on the idea that their culture was superiour to every other one around it. You'd fit right in.

Haha. So, what defines 'universal morality' then? Or more importantly, who defines 'universal morality' then? You?

God.

That's a pretty fucking amazing stupid claim. So *our* God defines morality then, heh? Amazing. Only about a fifth of the people on earth follow the guidelines set out by our god, and yet it is still 'universal'. I have this slight, itchy feeling you're confusing 'universal morality' with 'western morality'.

But, of course, we already knew that.

I criticized Islam. You criticized me for criticizing Islam. I said I believed in a universal set of morals. You said you didn't. I decided that further discussion of the issue would be pointless, because there is no way one of us will ever be able to change the other's beliefs. Yet you seem to insist on continuing this in an increasingly aggressive tone. Why?

Because you are acting like a bloody racist asshole. And it is, incidentally, one of *my* values that I will always combat such ideas with the last breath I have inside of me.

Also, it was *you* that set the agressive tone.

I'm as old as you are, ass, don't make assumptions.

I knew we were around the same age. So you are two years older than I originally thought. Big difference.

Ha. This wasn't really about the age thing, you know - I couldn't possibly care less about that. It was about the fact that you state that I 'aren't a supreme holder of any universal truths', yet you seem to be the supreme holder of the universal truth of universal morality. Double standards, again.

They are barbaric from the perspective of our own civilization

You said it! You said it!

*dances and cheers*

So, does this mean that you finally agree that no culture is to be considered barbaric by some 'universal standard'?

Oh, and imposing your morals on historical figures and declaring them evil, perverted and depraved because they didn't follow them is not immoral? Imposing Western values on Muslims so they can become 'civilized' in not immoral?

*I'm not trying to impose anything upon anyone.*

And yes, I'm free to declare a historical figure evil, perverted and depraved, same way you are free to call me an immoral hipocrite. With the important distinction that said historical figure *was*, by existing accounts, evil, perverted and depraved.

By existing accounts! You said it! You said it!

*dances and cheers*

So, does this mean that you finally agree that that figure was *not* morally depraved by the standards of his own timeframe?



Anyway, I'm getting way to tired for this. I'll finish the rest tomorrow.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

That's a pretty fucking amazing stupid claim. So *our* God defines morality then, heh? Amazing. Only about a fifth of the people on earth follow the guidelines set out by our god, and yet it is still 'universal'. I have this slight, itchy feeling you're confusing 'universal morality' with 'western morality'.

Sincere question here: aren't all the Gods of the monotheistic religions the same? I mean, Muhammed was told the word of God by archangel Gabriel and Orthodox Jews basically just don't accept Jesus as a messiah. It all seems to me pretty much Old Testament stuff with some culture-specific sprinkles. Well?

If so, saying "God" (as opposed to "the Gods") could never be a ambiguous term, now could it?

 

[Roshambo]

So, does this mean that you finally agree that that figure was *not* morally depraved by the standards of his own timeframe?

No culture likes to see itself as improper or wrong. Unfortunately, there is a certain prevaling concept in "enlightened" cultures and religions, that of "self" and where one human ends and another begins.

You can, also, go by what mankind as a whole* has set as a standard, xenophobic in nature as each piece tends to be. Discard and that every common moral code or law in any culture deemed to be enlightened boils down to the reasoning behind it - is an act done for all parties involved, or is it just for the desires of one party inflicted upon another? That is the basis for every moral law in any culture, of deeming right from wrong. No enlightened culture is without a sense of "self", and it is this disregard that Islam has adopted that makes it inherently barbaric to humanity**, and keeps the religion that way to modern times. Except for the equivalent of a weekend Wicca in NON-Muslim countries.

I think you're bright enough to figure out where childfucking would be filed under. As a child is sexually immature and basically couldn't expected to feel anything but pain, it serves no purpose for them. And then there's the objectifying of women, which is quite ironic since the Prophet wouldn't have been anyone without the funding and support of his first (and only at the time) wife, at a time when women were about the same level as men and could have "submissive" husbands. I also don't think you have to be a complete psychoanalyst to understand why the Prophet wrote that women should be submissive and subservient to the wishes of their husband, along with his other contradictory writings and actions involving his own cousin for selfish reasons using the excusing mentality of most rapists, writing a spurning into the Qu'uran and then approval for his own actions, and then takes a child as a wife, where the father asked that the Prophet not consummate until three years later. Apparently, someone had higher ethics than the Prophet. That means that it wasn't entirely cultural, and therefore the Prophet was not a holy or proper man by even those standards.

Sociology 101. It only works if you study what happens around the events, not take the events in a superficial manner.

* - Of cultures considered to be civilized, of course, hence the moral code quantification. In other words, this easily excludes most of Africa and several parts of the Mid-East and Asia.

** - I would like to note a correction here; Islam is inherently barbaric to the concepts of both Eastern and Western civilized cultures. Hell, you could even count Christianity as Eastern, given where it started, and then there's that whole Tibet/rest of Asia for civilized cultures that the "West" then was drooling over for both technology and other culture aspects - like a postal system.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

One again, I refer you to the Buddhists.
They're turning out to be quite usefull, after all.

They have a stagnant society, yes. They are technologically somewhat primitive, yes. Do they care? No.

They probably don't care, but that's not the issue.

Perhaps, but the fact that you say 'Muslims [...] integrate in a civilized society' more than implies that you consider them uncivilized beforehand - and the fact that you say that that is mainly because they have succeeded in 'adopting western values' more than implies that adopting western values is neccesary to integrate in a civilized society, which, in turn, implies that Western civilization is the only civilization.
Don't dance around.

You got it all wrong.

Don't dance around.

But today, just about any civilized society is primarily civilized through traits and bonds it shares with the West. Ever heard of globalization?

Allright, let me help you a bit in stopping embarassing yourself:

civ·i·li·za·tion

1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Now, disregarding the fact that you constantly misuse the word 'civilized' - would you kindly care to explain to me how, say, Indonesia or China based their society primarily on western 'traits and bonds'?

Because, as you defined yourself, civilization is an "advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions". China and Indonesia have complex political and social institutions, often modelled after western ones - that's one trait they share with the West. Their societies are on roughly the same level of intellectual development as their western counterparts - that's another trait they share with the West. With economic development, they increasingly adopt certain western values, such as materialism - that's yet another trait they share with the West. Do you understand?

So everyone who doesn't live in the West (or Bosnia and Jordan) is an Islamist fanatic?

So you say exactly the same thing I explicitely stated you might say. You are getting too predictable.

Dude, it's what you said. *Stop* trying to deny that.

You misunderstood my words. *Stop* trying to deny that.

Heh heh. SO, what Muslim societies *aren't* civilized, then?

They all are.

I don't see how. I'm using rational, logical and scientific thought processes here - instead of calling shit evil and drawing short-sighted conclusions. Actually, that's more like the route you're taking.

Liar. You essentially call me a racist and a Nazi and declare that you will fight me with the last breath you have inside of you. That *is* "calling shit evil" and drawing short-sighted conclusions. Oh, but wait, racism is a value as well, isn't it? Then what are you doing attacking me for being a racist? For all you know, racism might be the value of my society, and by attacking me for my racism you could be attacking my society - a very *racist* thing to do.

Also, you are consistently misusing the word "racism", but never mind. I wouldn't want to get in the way of your "rational, logical and scientific processes".

No, you constantly have to struggle to get out from under your previous racist comments. There's a difference.

No, I constantly have to defend myself from your mouth stuffing.

You dance with the best of them, Ratty - but no dice.

The debate on Western civilization started with this:

I don't really consider Islam inherently evil, I just consider its teachings more inherently controversial and ambiguous than those of any other major religion, and thus more likely to be perverted and abused. When comparing the central Muslim figure - Muhammad - and the central Christian figure - Jesus Christ - I find that Muhammad is a person of questionable motives and morals, and therefore I strongly doubt any divine message he supposedly relayed. I never believed that Muslims were somehow predisposed for evil or impossible to integrate in a civilized society, mainly because there are countless examples of Muslims who have adopted western values without compromising their religious beliefs. Take European Bosniaks, a Muslim nation known for their pacifism and liberalism. There are even examples of peaceful, stable and pluralist Islamic societies in the Middle East - Jordan, for instance.

Which is about morals and values. In that light, my reply is *clearly* about morals and values too - even if I don't mention the words 'values' or 'morals' too often. And your full sentence was:

I judge a civilization's level od development by affluence, quality of life, human rights and how efficiently they are upheld, and by those criteria the western civilization *is* currently the pinnacle of human achievment.

First you list some values, and they you write 'by those criteria'. Dude. Who *are* you trying to fool?

3. Western culture is not superiour to any other kind of culture, and should not be held up as the pinnacle of human achievement.

It sounded like you meant "pinnacle of human achievement" in general. But it doesn't really matter, because I also claim that Western culture is the pinnacle of human achievement in ethical sense.

Aaaaaand... another dance.

The fact that you desperately trying to convince me of the superiourity of western values is acting like an 'idealist world-improver', yes - no matter how deluded it might be. The fact that you aren't actually *doing* anything doesn't matter, I'm talking about state of mind here. Don't act like you don't know that.

*I* am desperately trying to convince *you*? Liar. You are the one foaming his mouth at the notion that western values might be *just a wee bit better* than values of a society where it's okay to stone women and have sex with little kids.

See, you are the one putting bullshit claims into my mouth. I never said that those values were equal to our own. Either you are incredibly dumb or incredibly pig-headed, but you *constantly* seem to miss my point. I feel like I'm talking to a ten-year-old here.

Liar. You don't claim those values are equal to our own, yet you repeatedly state that our own values aren't superior to any other values? That's a very blatant contradiction.

Let me give you a few quotes from your previous posts:

Either offer an example that proves me wrong or shut up.

So you can take the Buddhist example and stow it.

and am quite frankly disappointed that you would make up such a pathetic claim in what is supposed to be a serious debate

Liar. That was in response to your mouth-stuffing (a serious faux in an Internet debate by any criterion) and accusing me of being a racist and a xenophobe.

Guess what, as a college student at a tender age of 19 (give or take a year) you aren't a supreme holder of any universal truths

That was in response to your condenscending attitude in regard to my beliefs.

such concept is alien and repulsive to me.

Because it is.

I don't buy into this "relative morals" nonsense.

Because I don't.

And I'm the agressive one? Heeeerrrre come the double standards again!

Indeed.

And, as I said before, you are the one twisting your own words.

Again, nice try though.

I'm not, really. But you are the one who has moved on from twisting words to spouting outright lies.

My point was: do you think it matters to those people wether they are being opressed, starving and freezig to death in the West or in an Islamic nation? Do you think théy consider Western society to be the pinnacle of human achievement?

Of course it doesn't, and I agree with you. But they are of no relevance to this debate, because they don't disprove the fact that western civilization is a pinnacle in human history. They only show that our societies still have a *long* way to go in terms of development, ethical and otherwise.

Nazism was largely based on the idea that their culture was superiour to every other one around it. You'd fit right in.

How can I take you seriously when you make claims like this?

That's a pretty fucking amazing stupid claim. So *our* God defines morality then, heh? Amazing. Only about a fifth of the people on earth follow the guidelines set out by our god, and yet it is still 'universal'. I have this slight, itchy feeling you're confusing 'universal morality' with 'western morality'.

I'm glad you consider my beliefs stupid. Guess what - I don't give a damn.

Ha. This wasn't really about the age thing, you know - I couldn't possibly care less about that. It was about the fact that you state that I 'aren't a supreme holder of any universal truths', yet you seem to be the supreme holder of the universal truth of universal morality. Double standards, again.

Liar. I have *repeatedly* stated that those are my *beliefs*, hence I wouldn't try to argue them because they aren't something that can be proven logically. Yet *you* are the one with a condescending attitude and a naive conviction that you understand everything about the world. "Then I feel sorry for you. For there is no such thing as universal morality." Sound familiar, dipshit?

You said it! You said it!

*dances and cheers*

So, does this mean that you finally agree that no culture is to be considered barbaric by some 'universal standard'?

Yes, obviously there can be no "universal standard" on how barbaric a culture is, but I believe in a "universal standard" on how moral a culture is. That's the point.

By existing accounts! You said it! You said it!

*dances and cheers*

So, does this mean that you finally agree that that figure was *not* morally depraved by the standards of his own timeframe?

By existing *accounts*, not by existing *standards*. Get a dictionary, for fuck's sake.

And yes, I still think he was morally depraved and am sure his nine-year-old wife, all the women who were raped thanks to his teachings and all the innocent traders he butchered would agree with me.

 

[Sander]

Jebus, do you really not see that there is no difference between believing that morality is relative and believing that morality is absolute. You can argue all you want, but it doesn't make either of the beliefs more likely. The fact that people viewed things as immoral or as moral does not in any way mean that those views were right if there is a universal morality. One can argue a lot about what such a universal morality is, but the fact that some 3000 years of philosophizing hasn't ever produced one definite and undisputed result should say enough.

 

[Mikey]

mean, the Bible and christianity have to be linked and how else would christianity function without the bible??

Not my point. I mean to say that not all of Christianity is contained in the Bible. Of course they're linked, but they are not one and the same.

And I'm not saying that the bible can't be trusted because of the contradictions - I'm saying that it cannot be taken as the actcualy words God spoke (bar those Jesus actually did speak), more like the work of man with divine inspiration.

 

[Duckman]

But calling God merciful in one bit of the book and a War God in another is something you can't quite get around.

But God is often referred to as many different things, depending on what the context is. Seeing as He is the most powerful being in existence, to certain people He shows His true power/contempt/kindness to mankind.

Then God is a lousy writer/teller.

A novelist who filled his thriller with so many contradictions would not survive the critics.

But it's certainly withstood the test of time. If we are basically using the similar bible to those who used it when it was written, give or take a few translation errors, I've got to say its done pretty well for itself...

Not my point. I mean to say that not all of Christianity is contained in the Bible. Of course they're linked, but they are not one and the same.

And I'm not saying that the bible can't be trusted because of the contradictions - I'm saying that it cannot be taken as the actcualy words God spoke (bar those Jesus actually did speak), more like the work of man with divine inspiration.

The Bible is a perfectly written book. Take for example Song of Songs or Song of Solomon, depending on your version of the Bible. Take a guess as to what it is referring to the entire time and it may surprise you, unless of course you already know...