Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Aug 20, 2006.
That is what multiculturalism is about:
So long as those mores do not lead to, or advocate for, the harm of oneself or others, we should indeed be understanding and tolerant of them. But when they do lead to or advocate for such harm they should be immediately discarded for the rubbish they are.
Too many, on both sides of the argument fail to understand that distinction. Whiles others willinigly choose to ignore it and use it to fan the flames of xenophobia and racism.
What's your point?
Who gets to define what's harmful to another person? Is Islams treatment of women just a cultural difference that should be tolerated as long as they don't slit their throats for not complying with that treatment? How about if they stoned her instead? That's an acceptable practice all over the Muslim world. Wanna see a video? I got plenty.
As far as harming oneself is concerned, that's really none of the states business unless you decide to take as many other people with you as you possibly can in defense of a philosophy that tells you it's an honor to do just that.
At what point do you stop blaming the individual people and start blaming the philosophy that breeds them in huge numbers everyday? How many dead will it take?
Any act which results in the physical or psychological harm of oneself or another...Not much for anyone to determine there.
The state may indeed have no vested concern in whether or not someone harms themselves...But often those willing to cause themselves harm have no compunction about harming others.
Individuals do bear a responsibility in this matter as they have a choice as to whether or not they follow a doctrine which leads to the harm of themselves or others.
In any case, what's your point?...Other than a diatribe against Islam?
Gee, I have a problem with 'honor killings', genital mutilation, and people that want to kill or support those who want to kill, anyone who doesn't agree with their culture or mores. I guess that is pretty limiting regarding xenophobia.
Here's the REAL pisser! No matter how ass-backwards their thinking, no matter how out-of-date their lifestyle, no matter how incomprehensible their conclusions, the Muslim's claim to "divine" guidance is just as legitimate as any other religion.
With that "legitimacy" driving them, I don't see an end to the problem short of annihilation.
Reading Bullypit's post that you quoted, so does he (have a problem with those things)....
Let me say it again...with emphasis.
<blockquote>So long as those mores <b><i>do not lead to, or advocate for, the harm of oneself or others, we should indeed be understanding and tolerant of them.</b></i> But <b><i>when they do lead to or advocate for such harm they should be immediately discarded for the rubbish they are</b></i>.
Too many, on both sides of the argument fail to understand that distinction. While others willingly choose to ignore it and use it to fan the flames of xenophobia and racism.</blockquote>
So, "...'honor killings', genital mutilation, and people that want to kill or support those who want to kill, anyone who doesn't agree with their culture or mores..." all fall into that general category of actions that lead to or advocate for the harm of oneself or others. I was too mild in characterizing such values as 'rubbish' though. They are virulently toxic waste, and those who preach them must be stopped, regardless of race, creed or color. But so long as there are those willing to listen to their message of death, these hate mongerers will continue to thrive. Because, you see, regardless of what religion these monsters claim to follow or what doctrine they preach, they have only one creed...A hatred of life.
Yep. When dealing with the subjective nature of religious experience and divine revelation...anyone can claim a direct pipeline to their favorite deity. Annhilation, however, is not an option. The rule of law...objective, empirically based law...is.
So then we go with annhilation?
Separate names with a comma.