mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Don't Draw Says Pakistan Options
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:55:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Which country has blocked Facebook for holding an online competition to draw Prophet Mohammed

Answer: Pakistan – the Facebook in Pakistan has been blocked till 31 May as the competition is considered blasphemous

Washington Times Article & Comments
uuaschbaer
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:29:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
Not just Facebook, also Youtube and I believe hundreds of other web sites. Also I thought there was no end date given and it wasn't a competition. There must be more recent news articles around.
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:33:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
uuaschbaer wrote:
Not just Facebook, also Youtube and I believe hundreds of other web sites. Also I thought there was no end date given and it wasn't a competition. There must be more recent news articles around.

Thanks for advising me on that, uuaschdaer, not that I was intending to contribute any artwork.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:37:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
Dreamy wrote:
uuaschbaer wrote:
Not just Facebook, also Youtube and I believe hundreds of other web sites. Also I thought there was no end date given and it wasn't a competition. There must be more recent news articles around.

Thanks for advising me on that, uuaschdaer, not that I was intending to contribute any artwork.


I meant for the ban : ). I suppose there is a better word for it, but I can't think of one now. Repeal of the ban perhaps?
redsxz
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:07:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/27/2009
Posts: 1,081
Neurons: 5,425
Being Pakistani, I truely hate the friggin' ban. I mean by no account is that page honest or worthy of support(though it is funny) but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Aaaaargh, stupid mus....better stop there.

I'm kidding but seriously, stop this banning of stupidity, its sincerely funny. The group did have a noble purpose at first by the way which was to show the extremists who incited violence against the makers of South Park for drawing Mohammed in a bear suit that they weren't scared of their threats.

While I don't support the group really, I do back Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

I'd post a picture of one of those caricutures here but in the words of Russell Peters, I don't wanna die.
faridulhaq
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:48:59 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/21/2010
Posts: 5
Neurons: 15
Location: Pakistan
I think Pakistan has done good job...Being a muslim it is very painful for me and all other muslims...I think every muslim must stop using facebook...there is no guarantee that any one can start this type of community on facebook...facebook is the origin of this dispute...and its better to wipe out every dispute at grass root level...so ALL MUSLIMS MUST STOP USING FACEBOOK
uuaschbaer
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:50:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
faridulhaq wrote:
I think Pakistan has done good job...Being a muslim it is very painful for me and all other muslims...I think every muslim must stop using facebook...there is no guarantee that any one can start this type of community on facebook...facebook is the origin of this dispute...and its better to wipe out every dispute at grass root level...so ALL MUSLIMS MUST STOP USING FACEBOOK


All Muslims must think for themselves.
faridulhaq
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:53:28 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/21/2010
Posts: 5
Neurons: 15
Location: Pakistan
YES...We are thinking and we have decided after very careful thought
MarySM
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:14:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/22/2009
Posts: 1,627
Neurons: 6,084
As a child, my children's Bible Study Group asked all of us to draw Jesus the way we believed he would look. We were told that, since cameras did not exist when he lived, we do not know what he looked like and that the pictures we usually see are just an artists rendition of Jesus. The results were really enlightening.
Raparee
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:19:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 1,228
Neurons: 18,102
MarySM wrote:
As a child, my children's Bible Study Group asked all of us to draw Jesus the way we believed he would look. We were told that, since cameras did not exist when he lived, we do not know what he looked like and that the pictures we usually see are just an artists rendition of Jesus. The results were really enlightening.

That has to be one of the most brilliantly simple ways of looking at such issues that I've ever heard. I love it! Applause
redsxz
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:36:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/27/2009
Posts: 1,081
Neurons: 5,425
faridulhaq wrote:
YES...We are thinking and we have decided after very careful thought


So you're thinking for every muslim are you or even guessing every muslim's thought process? Careful thought my arse, you just saw the news and went thats it, better get out the banhammer.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:57:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
faridulhaq wrote:
YES...We are thinking and we have decided after very careful thought


No, people of the Lahore High Court have decided and force their opinion on all people in Pakistan who now cannot make the decision for themselves. Incidentally your claim that "we have decided" directly opposes your command "ALL MUSLIMS MUST STOP USING FACEBOOK", if the claim were true then the command would be absolutely pointless. I have heard Muslims oppose the ruling of the Lahore High Court and it would be misrepresentative of the Muslim community to pretend that these people don't exist. You cannot deny other people their own opinion or tell them what to do. What value has any opinion that is dictated or prescribed? Why couldn't you have left out the capitalized directive and claim of unanimity and truly let people think for themselves?
buxton
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:15:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/11/2009
Posts: 120
Neurons: 377
Location: UK
Faith is the belief that your religion is the truth. If people have faith in Islam and Muhammad, I don't see how a human's interpretation (i.e. a drawing) can be a threat - unless faith is shaken by people being given the opportunity to imagine different possibilities.

From my perspective, someone attempting to draw Christ is a fruitless endeavour, but that doesn't make it dangerous or offensive. I believe in Christ: any attempt to present him in a certain way, even if it doesn't fit my beliefs, is no threat to my religion.

The only people who stand to lose from such pluralism are the holy orders who seek to prescribe a certain means of understanding and practising a religion.

Maybe a little less self-interested and prohibitive enforcement of religion would have avoided this whole affair. If we were all allowed to draw whatever we please and tell people it was Christ or Muhammad, there would be no need for these Facebook rebellions. And we may just be a little more laid back about our faith, knowing it is our views, not the 'party line', that matter most.

I do believe that holy orders have allowed things to escalate though, in their desperation to cling on to the enthusiasm of existing followers: urging them to be blinkered rather than exposing them to potential disenchantment. A new type of engagement in religion is needed - one that takes our post-modern world and provides a fresh, meaningful angle on it.
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 12:16:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
In United States we prohibit child labor and we boycott goods made overseas by Children.
We do not like Communism and we boycott and sanction Cuba. Our Government acted on behalf of we the people.
What then is wrong, when Pakistan acts on behalf of their people? we have dissenters to our policies,so are Pakistanies to their policies.

Judging other Countries and Religions to western standards is the greatest injustice one can deliver to Humans.Some countries do not differentiate religion from State like Pakistan does.Therefore, Religious taboo on depiction is accepted as National taboo and are acted
upon by their Courts to sanction Face book's site. Who are we to deny them their freedom?

Google and Facebook etc are very invasive and defiant, and have a tendency to roughshod the sensibilities of countries that uphold certain intrinsic values higher than that are dictated by the self appointed Human Right Groups.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:24:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
Isaac Samuel wrote:
Judging other Countries and Religions to western standards is the greatest injustice one can deliver to Humans.


Can you back that claim up? Edit: Perhaps "substantiate" is the word I should've used. Or "argue".
Luftmarque
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:45:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,119
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Now this is surely the thorniest of all third-rail topics. So let's plunge right in… as a bona-fide liberal, I am opposed to cultural imperialism, yet there are some cultural practices (genital mutilation for one) so evil that I would like to see them abolished everywhere. In this case I am firmly in the "images harm no one" camp and consider banning Facebook to be a misguided encroachment on individual liberty. I feel sorry for Pakistanis unable to participate in whatever social networks they please. But I wouldn't advocate going to war over it. In-county threats against artists ought to be prosecuted.
peterhewett
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:01:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Ah now theres the rub... How to respond to IS without breaking our new found politness. Watch it now! Just joking.
TL Hobs
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:21:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
I saw the face of a religious icon on my bagel this morning, but I ate it. Sorry no one else got to share the image with me. I hope the clerics do not issue a fatwah on me for it.

Isn't the whole topic ridiculous?
Rabeeta Warsi
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:48:09 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/18/2010
Posts: 9
Neurons: 27
Location: Pakistan
"Dont draw says Pakistan": Seem sarcastic to me!

Pakistan Just banned sOme websites, Involving in da insUlt of Muslim's believes as it was'nt jUst a drawing but 'offEnsive drawings' of Muslim's moSt beloved Prophet! and No true Muslim and Pakistani wOuld have referred it to as an over-ReAction or hinder to west's sO-called 'Freedom of speech' ... !
Geeman
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:58:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
Isaac Samuel wrote:
In United States we prohibit child labor and we boycott goods made overseas by Children.
We do not like Communism and we boycott and sanction Cuba. Our Government acted on behalf of we the people.
What then is wrong, when Pakistan acts on behalf of their people? we have dissenters to our policies,so are Pakistanies to their policies.

Judging other Countries and Religions to western standards is the greatest injustice one can deliver to Humans.Some countries do not differentiate religion from State like Pakistan does.Therefore, Religious taboo on depiction is accepted as National taboo and are acted
upon by their Courts to sanction Face book's site. Who are we to deny them their freedom?

Google and Facebook etc are very invasive and defiant, and have a tendency to roughshod the sensibilities of countries that uphold certain intrinsic values higher than that are dictated by the self appointed Human Right Groups.

There is a fundamental difference between "freedom" and what Milton called "licence." Freedom is the toleration of ideas repugnant to the sensibilities of the others in a society. Licence is the exploitation of power to control others. Nobody is denying anyone's freedom by suggesting that the government of Pakistan is acting against human interest with their ban; it is the ban itself that is a restriction on freedom. The logic behind the U.S. boycott of Cuba is based upon the restrictions on freedom by that nation's government. (It's arguable how logical that conclusion might be, and how successful the boycott has been, but that's another subject....)

To put it another way, consider this question: What freedom is being denied the Pakistani government? The answer to that question is their freedom to restrict the freedom of the people in that country. The freedom to restrict freedom is tyranny.
RuthP
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:45:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Isaac Samuel wrote:
In United States we prohibit child labor and we boycott goods made overseas by Children.
We do not like Communism and we boycott and sanction Cuba. Our Government acted on behalf of we the people.
What then is wrong, when Pakistan acts on behalf of their people? we have dissenters to our policies,so are Pakistanies to their policies.

Judging other Countries and Religions to western standards is the greatest injustice one can deliver to Humans.Some countries do not differentiate religion from State like Pakistan does.Therefore, Religious taboo on depiction is accepted as National taboo and are acted
upon by their Courts to sanction Face book's site. Who are we to deny them their freedom?

Google and Facebook etc are very invasive and defiant, and have a tendency to roughshod the sensibilities of countries that uphold certain intrinsic values higher than that are dictated by the self appointed Human Right Groups.

Hi Isaac,

I respect Pakistan's right to make laws and rulings regarding what Pakistani citizens may and may not do. I also agree Saudi Arabia has such a right, as does Russia (as did South Africa in the time of apartheid). We live in a world of nations and cede to nations this right.

This does not, however, require me or my nation to agree with those laws or think it wise that the country has imposed them. Nor does it require me to support such laws. Thus, I may with good conscience, support boycotts and provide asylum for those fleeing such laws. As, for that matter, may any other country support boycotts and grant asylum to U.S. citizens. (Think Canada, during the Vietnam war.)

I, like Mark, consider this censorship to be very misguided. Here is
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
Quote:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.


As I respect Pakistan's right to make such laws, foolish as they may be in my view, so must Pakistan or any other government, including any Islamic government, respect the right of my nation and others to promulgate laws for their own populations. If those laws allow the printing of such cartoons, then they allow the printing of such cartoons. While Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would have a legal right to sanction those trying to import such material, and have the legal right to block their citizens' access through the internet (again, misguided in my view), they have no right to interfere within other countries.

For another posting: How far does this right extend? Does it extend to genocide, as seen in Rwanda, the Sudan, or Bosnia?
MarySM
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:49:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/22/2009
Posts: 1,627
Neurons: 6,084
Applause Well said Geeman.
Luftmarque
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:58:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,119
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
RuthP wrote:
For another posting: How far does this right extend? Does it extend to genocide, as seen in Rwanda, the Sudan, or Bosnia?

What a wonderful post! As for genocide, I would argue that it amounts to "making war on the world" and should be resisted militarily if necessary, but only by groups of nations together.
jammylammy
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:07:12 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/24/2010
Posts: 2
Neurons: 6
Location: United Kingdom
Isaac Samuel wrote:
In United States we prohibit child labor and we boycott goods made overseas by Children.
We do not like Communism and we boycott and sanction Cuba. Our Government acted on behalf of we the people.
What then is wrong, when Pakistan acts on behalf of their people? we have dissenters to our policies,so are Pakistanies to their policies.

Judging other Countries and Religions to western standards is the greatest injustice one can deliver to Humans.Some countries do not differentiate religion from State like Pakistan does.Therefore, Religious taboo on depiction is accepted as National taboo and are acted
upon by their Courts to sanction Face book's site. Who are we to deny them their freedom?

Google and Facebook etc are very invasive and defiant, and have a tendency to roughshod the sensibilities of countries that uphold certain intrinsic values higher than that are dictated by the self appointed Human Right Groups.



"Invasive"? "Defiant"? Not really. Not according to their own cultural norms, since you're being so subjective. "Useful", yes. "Naive", probably. You speak of cultural subjectivity and then you go on to describe "intrinsic values" whilst belittling human rights groups. Not only is that fairly ironic, but you'll have a hard time arguing the existence of any kind of intrinsic value to anybody of reasonable mind. I can only assume that the values you speak of are not the same values held by these "self-appointed" rights groups, but I do wonder why they are any more valid.

Moving swiftly onwards, your points are a little wide of the mark. "Communism" is in itself not why Cuba warrants embargoes, and the child labour comparison is a little bit ridiculous. In both instances, trade blocks and boycotts are enacted because of systems that are perceived to limit individual liberty and human rights.

But, you may wonder, how is this any different from any governmental system that is intrinsically tied to a religion? Why is "Truth, Justice and Liberty" any different from "Allahu akbar"? Well, in a sense, it's not. At least not in the way you're attempting to represent it: i.e. one socio-political ethos against another. There's no way to evaluate objectively which one is more valuable on a human level. As you said, it's subjective. But like I said, you're missing the point.

One is a power structure that purports, on a basic level, to represent the will of the people, but also to enable and liberate on an individual level. So long as they are not committing harm to others, anybody is free to live their life how they like (in principle, if not necessarily in practice).

The other system may indeed be democratic and strive to represent the will of the people. However (and yes, I'm aware this may be the will of the people), it does not enable and liberate on an individual level. Religious societies, as well as enforced social systems of many kinds, are tied to a rulebook on some level. The rulebook is a little more stringent than "Thou shalt not harm thy neighbour", and it doesn't necessarily encourage individual human rights.

These systems can promote various other things, though. Case in point, this thread. The individual liberties of people who would benefit from accessing Facebook have been usurped by a religious agenda. The crazy thing is that if you follow the reasoning invoked in this decision, you have to believe that people who don't believe/care/whatever in the prophet are encroaching upon the rights of others instead of vice versa.

Don't like seeing pictures of any given religious figure? Don't look at 'em. Don't want people to think bad things about him? Fair enough. I don't want busty women to wear anything that can't be classified as 'beachwear' on hot days. But I realise that bikinis may not offer the appropriate back support. I appreciate that they may live far inland and find such clothing context-inappropriate. I also understand that maybe they just feel a little self-conscious. Whatever their reasoning, I respect their right to not display their cleavage for my aesthetic pleasure, however much it conflicts with my own beliefs on the matter.

But seriously...

One system says: individual rights trump all. (usually provided your individual rights don't conflict with the rights of others)

The other system is of the opinion that in certain situations, individual rights must be bypassed in order to order to adhere to a unique set of conditions that are more important than what individuals would prefer to think/believe. (your so-called "intrinsic values".)

It's not as simple as saying it's all cultural and subjective, though.

What is the difference between a government boycotting regimes that infringe upon basic human rights and a government that infringes those same rights?

Think about it. It's not hard.

Still stuck?

A government that passes legislation to enforce the rights of others, even in areas outside of its own jurisdiction = a liberator. A government that enacts laws to restrict the rights of its own citizens = an oppressor. That's basic logic. It's not cultural, and it's not subjective. Describing it as such is actually closer to what you phrased as the "greatest injustice one can deliver to humans."

(A brief disclaimer, so that I don't come across as overly patriotic. I'm not American. I'm not even European. I just have some perspective.)


Luftmarque
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:38:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,119
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
jammylammy wrote:
A government that passes legislation to enforce the rights of others, even in areas outside of its own jurisdiction = a liberator. A government that enacts laws to restrict the rights of its own citizens = an oppressor. That's basic logic. It's not cultural, and it's not subjective. Describing it as such is actually closer to what you phrased as the "greatest injustice one can deliver to humans."

Works for me. (BTW that first post seems worth more than 3 points.)
Investigator
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:55:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2010
Posts: 989
Neurons: 2,961
Location: Northern Nevàda
Buxton, this may cause a matter/anti-matter rift in the universe, but I agree with you. That being said I have to expand, probably in ways you won't like.

There are Christians who would like to enact laws to support or enforce their points of view on the populace and certainly most Muslims would love to see Sharia law enforced on the world. The problem with enforcing Christian, Islam, Buddist or any other religious ideas on the public is that doing so removes the belief from the religion. I no longer can do X because it is illegal to do X, not because I suddenly believe it is morally or religiously wrong to do it.

If the temptation to do something is removed by law then no one has resisted the temptation. We sometimes do this because the giving in to the temptation is so horrendous that society cannot bear it (i.e., murder). Brigham Young carried the same plug of tobacco is his back pocket, untouched, for 20 years because he felt that if tobacco was not available to him then he was not resisting its temptation.

When governments enact laws that parrot religious beliefs, such as Sharia law, they benefit no one. If I don't make an image of Mohammad because I am afraid the Ayatolla will put a contract out on my life have I respected Mohammad? If your religion is strong and your faith in your religion is strong, then why would you need secular laws?

The same is true of political systems (this is the part you won't like Buxton). If a political system is strong it can tolerate multiple parties, opposition press and free speech. Political systems that are weak (think Argentia) close down opposition press, suppress free speech and tolerate only one point of view.

I always liked something Will Rogers said. He said, "Congress should not try to legislate morality or ethics as they have no experience with either one."
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:02:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
The concepts and definitions of freedom,liberty, and Human rights are still not understood as basic virtues by many countries as westerners do, much less practicing them.It differs from one country to the other and one tribe to the other, based on their traditional values they uphold.

I am sorry, I did not set my premises clear enough to be understood by all. Hope my
preceding para is an improvement. It is not our (American) pre·rog·a·tive to teach the
world these virtues. Good enough,if we practice them ourselves, for others to pick up on.

Att:jammylammy:
I usually tend to be controversial in my posts.
I do not mind getting pilloried as long as they do not exceed the size of my post.
I am afraid,you have to revise it for me to read; if you want to make an impression on me. If not...
Thank you and welcome to the forum.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:46:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
To Isaac Samuel:
Actually I think it is everybody's prerogative (oxymoronic, I know, I actually mean "right"), if not duty, to do what he thinks is right. And, come to think of it, judging anybody or anything by anything other than your own standards is a fantasy. Sure, you must judge in context, so to speak, but to judge according another's standards is not to judge at all, it is to cover your eyes.
jammylammy
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 7:38:29 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/24/2010
Posts: 2
Neurons: 6
Location: United Kingdom
Isaac Samuel wrote:
The concepts and definitions of freedom,liberty, and Human rights are still not understood as basic virtues by many countries as westerners do, much less practicing them.It differs from one country to the other and one tribe to the other, based on their traditional values they uphold.

I am sorry, I did not set my premises clear enough to be understood by all. Hope my
preceding para is an improvement. It is not our (American) pre·rog·a·tive to teach the
world these virtues. Good enough,if we practice them ourselves, for others to pick up on.

Att:jammylammy:
I usually tend to be controversial in my posts.
I do not mind getting pilloried as long as they do not exceed the size of my post.
I am afraid,you have to revise it for me to read; if you want to make an impression on me. If not...
Thank you and welcome to the forum.


I usually tend to be verbose in my posts, so you may disregard much of what I write in the future. I'm afraid I'm not ambitious enough to attempt to make impressions on strangers. Rather, I visit forums to engage in discussions and have impressions made on me. The text is there if you want to read it. If not... perhaps others will.

Thank you for the welcome :)

I would agree that ethical concepts are not standardised at all and it is not up to America or western nations in general to initiate value lessons of this kind. I'm still a little unsure of where your prior examples fit into this model, though. Granted, child labour (for example) may be ethically sound in some cultures (our conception of children and their developing nature is relatively modern, even in the west), but boycotting products that don't gel with our ethical systems is only logical, as are similar procedures -- not as a didactic signal to the world, but simply as a lack of endorsement. To fail to do so would be like claiming to be a vegetarian and then saying it was okay to eat meat since you didn't kill it. You need to walk the walk in these things.

Also, though I agree that it's not the West's prerogative to dispatch morality courses to the rest of the world, that doesn't mean that such action is always negative. Somebody brought up apartheid, which was hugely affected by international trade diplomatic action. Conversely, apartheid would probably have suffered even more without some of the strong support it had from key global figures and heads of state. It was nobody's prerogative, but did it help end a startlingly anachronistic regime? Without question.

nooblet
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:05:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/2009
Posts: 1,570
Neurons: 4,778
Location: United States
Jammy, you are awesome. Your posts are eloquent and well-reasoned. Welcome the forums. :)
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:21:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
[size=6]jammylammy:

My initial post attracted knee-jerk reactions from some members,which I apologetically accepted and reset my premises quickly. It is too late for you to revisit it in your first para.

Your second para is hypothetical and speculative;akin to writing a book on sex by someone who had never been in bed with a girl.

Yet, I think you will be of value to some members including me in spite of your rhetorical bent.
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:38:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
Mens rea:

Your xenophobic post is not welcome.It is not even a day, since you became a member but(by little sleuthing) I find that you already have polluted the forum with 4 of your trashy posts.
I have better opinion of Canadians.please don't mar it.
Luftmarque
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:53:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,119
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Isaac Samuel wrote:
Mens rea:

Your xenophobic post is not welcome.It is not even a day, since you became a member but(by little sleuthing) I find that you already have polluted the forum with 4 of your trashy posts.
I have better opinion of Canadians.please don't mar it.

Seems to me this is a clear case of justifiable use of the Mark As Spam button.
dingdong
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:18:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/7/2010
Posts: 1,139
Neurons: 3,370
Location: Philippines
Mens rea: reading your posts makes me want to take a shower. You won't last.
Tovarish
Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:40:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Redsxz, I am proud of you, but, are you Pakistani or Australian?
Sound Aussie to me, you are prepared to have a go.

You too Ding Dong, Mens Rea is a bigot.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.