The Refugee Crisis

[pr126]

Welcome to the forum Sirvas.

Sorry for the cancer we fuckers gave you.
Unfortunately, we are unable to pay your medical bill for the treatment you need.

But please tell us about yourself, in the introduction section.
What are you doing with your life, what are your likes, dislikes, Where are you from, and what is your favourite colour. Fetishes if any.

Incidentally, thanks for the lecture. Big thumbs up.

Be seeing you.

[josephpalazzo]

Truth, including morality related truth, is provisional.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Truth is in terms of the value of a statement. For instance, the statement, "it's raining outside", where "outside" would be a specific time and a specific location, is either true or false. In that sense, truth is not provisional. That statement is something that can be investigated, which then determines its true/false value. OTOH, if you are expressing an opinion, "Life sucks", it is almost impossible to determine if this statement is true or false as it raises questions of modality, criteria, methods of evaluation, etc. I think what you are referring here is "personal truth", the truth according to your worldview. In that sense, your "personal truth' is the set of all your opinions, and that cannot be determined as true or false. In which case your statement that "truth is provisional" would make sense.

As to Godel axiom, what it says is that any system will contain unprovable truths. In math, they are called axioms; in science, they are the hypotheses. But that system does not refer to the set of all your opinions ( your worldview) but to the type of statements I've made allusion - "it's raining outside", verifiable statements or in the case of math, tautologies. It's a common mistake to use Godel's theorem in realm it simply doesn't apply.

[Shiranu]

You are threading on cultural relativism bullshit...

"Cultural relativism bullshit" is the very base of all the modern anthropology branches. Besides arguing now that ethnicity makes you "superiour" you now want to argue that the entire field of anthropology is bunk because it is based on a foundation of bullshit. Boaz and his "cultural relativistic bullshit" brought anthropology out of the dark ages and turned it into a legitimate science... so you have to excuse me for seeing you now like the idiots who argue evolution is bullshit and thus say the entire field of biology is bullshit.

I have nothing to prove; you are the one asserting that white ethnicity is "superiour" and that an entire branch of science is "bullshit" because you disagree with it. I might as well argue with a Klansman or a evolution denier.

[Fickle]

I would ask the question, why are they refugee's?. This mass exodus of people fleeing from their own country occupied by a very small group of fanatics seems foreign to me. Here in Canada most every man I know would not be running away from anything but in fact the opposite into the fight. A person cannot claim to have conviction or to believe in something then at the first sign of trouble run away with their tail between their legs because it has no credibility. Not to mention the fact our soldiers over there cannot seem to train anyone because most keep dropping their weapons and running away.

This is the problem I see with religion and beliefs in this day and age where many people say one thing yet do another. They claim to be strong, intelligent, responsible adults then at the first sign of trouble they come completely unglued and start doing completely irrational shit for no apparent reason. What do they truly believe if very few are actually willing to stand up for what they believe?, very little I think.

[Baruch]

"Cultural relativism bullshit" is the very base of all the modern anthropology branches. Besides arguing now that ethnicity makes you "superiour" you now want to argue that the entire field of anthropology is bunk because it is based on a foundation of bullshit. Boaz and his "cultural relativistic bullshit" brought anthropology out of the dark ages and turned it into a legitimate science... so you have to excuse me for seeing you now like the idiots who argue evolution is bullshit and thus say the entire field of biology is bullshit.

I have nothing to prove; you are the one asserting that white ethnicity is "superiour" and that an entire branch of science is "bullshit" because you disagree with it. I might as well argue with a Klansman or a evolution denier.

Sociology has long been captive to "flavor of the week" politics.  Over 120 years ago, sociology was a political movement in the universities to make political policy rational, on scientific principles (not based on politics) ... so that failed.  At that time much of anthropology was about studying colonized people, and trying to find how to turn them into proper Englishmen ... so that failed.  Comparative religion then was to demonstrate that religion evolves and that Protestant Christianity is the most advanced kind ... so that failed.

Today multiculturalism is the neo-lib flavor of the week.  Mauricio may only be claiming that he is more comfortable in a society like the one he already lives in.  Anything that upsets that (and this includes Afghans) is going to be hostile to it.  Being "more comfortable" isn't the same as bigotry.  I am not bigoted toward Hispanics in the US, but that doesn't mean I want to live in the heart of the Sinaloa cartel down in Old Mexico.

[pr126]

They are not technically refugees, we call them that for our purposes.
They are migrants, at best economic migrants, at worst it is Hijra, which is to spread and advance Islam.

Although no one should say that. It is against the narrative. Forbidden talk.

But let's ask a question. People fleeing a war torn country.
These "refugees" are predominantly, 80 % healthy military age males. Where are the women, children, the old people? Would you leave your family behind in a war zone?

[mauricio]

"Cultural relativism bullshit" is the very base of all the modern anthropology branches. Besides arguing now that ethnicity makes you "superiour" you now want to argue that the entire field of anthropology is bunk because it is based on a foundation of bullshit. Boaz and his "cultural relativistic bullshit" brought anthropology out of the dark ages and turned it into a legitimate science... so you have to excuse me for seeing you now like the idiots who argue evolution is bullshit and thus say the entire field of biology is bullshit.

I have nothing to prove; you are the one asserting that white ethnicity is "superiour" and that an entire branch of science is "bullshit" because you disagree with it. I might as well argue with a Klansman or a evolution denier.

Well then give me a solid definition of cultural relativism a explain to me why we can't compare cultures against each other over certain values. Imo just by virtue of the enlightment and the scientific revolution the western culture is running ahead on ethics and epistemology, there's also the high levels of education and stability. Quality of life... I could go on, but imo clearly cultures can be compared against each other and maybe not on their absolute totality since there's so many factors but there are some pretty obvious differences which are relevant when we are talking about the possibility of a smaller valuable culture getting swallowed by another. BTW nice dodge you have completely avoided to respond to my initial criticisms of your post and took us into a tangential discussion.

[mauricio]

Well here is some interesting stuff from the wiki article of cultural relativism:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism#Comparison_to_moral_relativism
Comparison to moral relativism[edit]
According to Marcus and Fischer, when the principle of cultural relativism was popularized after World War II, it came to be understood "more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method." As a consequence, people misinterpreted cultural relativism to mean that all cultures are both separate and equal, and that all value systems, however different, are equally valid. Thus, people came to use the phrase "cultural relativism" erroneously to signify "moral relativism."

People generally understand moral relativism to mean that there are no absolute or universal moral standards. The nature of anthropological research lends itself to the search for universal standards (standards found in all societies), but not necessarily absolute standards; nevertheless, people often confuse the two. In 1944 Clyde Kluckhohn (who studied at Harvard, but who admired and worked with Boas and his students) attempted to address this issue:

The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principle of cultural relativity will weaken morality. "If the Bugabuga do it why can't we? It's all relative anyway." But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean.
The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy scepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable.[13][14]
Although Kluckholn was using language that was popular at the time (e.g. "savage tribe") but which is now considered antiquated and coarse by most anthropologists, his point was that although moral standards are rooted in one's culture, anthropological research reveals that the fact that people have moral standards is a universal. He was especially interested in deriving specific moral standards that are universal, although few if any anthropologists think that he was successful.[13]

There is an ambiguity in Kluckhohn's formulation that would haunt anthropologists in the years to come. It makes it clear that one's moral standards make sense in terms of one's culture. He waffles, however, on whether the moral standards of one society could be applied to another. Four years later American anthropologists had to confront this issue head-on.

Statement on human rights[edit]
The transformation of cultural relativism as a heuristic tool into the doctrine of moral relativism occurred in the context of the work of the Commission of Human Rights of the United Nations in preparing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Melville Herskovits prepared a draft "Statement on Human Rights" which Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association revised, submitted to the Commission on Human Rights, and then published.[15] The statement begins with a fairly straightforward explanation of the relevance of cultural relativism:

The problem is thus to formulate a statement of human rights that will do more than phrase respect for the individual as individual. It must also take into full account the individual as a member of a social group of which he is part, whose sanctioned modes of life shape his behavior, and with whose fate his own is thus inextricably bound
The bulk of this statement emphasizes concern that the Declaration of Human Rights was being prepared primarily by people from Western societies, and would express values that, far from being universal, are really Western:

Today the problem is complicated by the fact that the Declaration must be of world-wide applicability. It must embrace and recognize the validity of many different ways of life. It will not be convincing to the Indonesian, the African, the Chinese, if it lies on the same plane as like documents of an earlier period. The rights of Man in the Twentieth Century cannot be circumscribed by the standards of any single culture, or be dictated by the aspirations of any single people. Such a document will lead to frustration, not realization of the personalities of vast numbers of human beings.
Although this statement could be read as making a procedural point (that the Commission must involve people of diverse cultures, especially cultures that had been or are still under European colonial or imperial domination), the document ended by making two substantive claims:

Even where political systems exist that deny citizens the right of participation in their government, or seek to conquer weaker peoples, underlying cultural values may be called on to bring the peoples of such states to a realization of the consequences of the acts of their governments, and thus enforce a brake upon discrimination and conquest.
World-wide standards of freedom and justice, based on the principle that man is free only when he lives as his society defines freedom, that his rights are those he recognizes as a member of his society, must be basic.
These claims provoked an immediate response by a number of anthropologists. Julian Steward (who, as a student of Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie, and as a professor at Columbia University, was situated firmly in the Boasian lineage) suggested that the first claim "may have been a loophole to exclude Germany from the advocated tolerance," but that it revealed the fundamental flaw in moral relativism: "Either we tolerate everything, and keep hands off, or we fight intolerance and conquest â€" political and economic as well as military â€" in all their forms." Similarly, he questioned whether the second principle means that anthropologists "approve the social caste system of India, the racial caste system of the United States, or many other varieties of social discrimination in the world".[16] Steward and others[17] argued that any attempt to apply the principle of cultural relativism to moral problems would only end in contradiction: either a principle that seems to stand for tolerance ends up being used to excuse intolerance, or the principle of tolerance is revealed to be utterly intolerant of any society that seems to lack the (arguably, Western) value of tolerance. They concluded that anthropologists must stick to science, and engage in debates over values only as individuals.

[mauricio]

Imo if cultural relativism is just a method to understand cultures from within themselves rather than a statement on morality and epistemology in general. Then i have no problme with it.

[Baruch]

Every individual and society, has a view of itself internally ... and by others externally.  Both views are required.  In times past, natives/others were not allowed to speak for themselves ... we spoke for them (while arrogantly viewing them as primitives and colonized).  It is like Custer trying to tell me what it is like to be a Lakota.  He had a view, but so had Crazy Horse ... to understand what happened between those to men, you would have to understand both views.  White guilt or Native chauvinism are ... not an objective story.

[Shiranu]

BTW nice dodge you have completely avoided to respond to my initial criticisms of your post and took us into a tangential discussion.

Alas you have found me out. Perhaps if your post had addressed mine's point we wouldn't be on this wild goose chase. But here we are.

I think it's only fair that a post criticising mine for nothing to do with it's point should only be responded to in the same manner. Here... I'll sum it up one more time...

The point is I don't believe in running around crying that the end it's a coming and doomsday awaits every time the white majority claims the big brown wolf is coming to get them nor the capitalist or Christian who fears the en vogue boogeyman will take their slice of the pie. We say it over and over that the "good ol' days" are coming to an end and guess what... It never happens.

[mauricio]

Alas you have found me out. Perhaps if your post had addressed mine's point we wouldn't be on this wild goose chase. But here we are.

I think it's only fair that a post criticising mine for nothing to do with it's point should only be responded to in the same manner. Here... I'll sum it up one more time...

You are just dodging I made it clear already i was criticizing the implied faulty ethics in this statement

Hmm... for some reason a European crying about their ethnicity being eroded just doesn't hit me. Guess it's probably karma for hundreds and hundreds of years destroying any non-white culture that just makes their "plight" hard to sympathize with.

But honestly obviously that was getting nowhere so i was ok with moving on to the cultural relativism topic because ultimately my goal is to learn your perspective and challenge it with my own not to "win" the argument. So if you can give me a 101 of what cultural relativism means that would be great. I already posted some material which we can use to form common ground.

[Shiranu]

You are just dodging I made it clear already i was criticizing the implied faulty ethics in this statement

Which was a quick personal aside and nothing to do with the over-arching point in the post.

[mauricio]

Which was a quick personal aside and nothing to do with the over-arching point in the post.

I know that. In my first response to that post i did not want to criticize your over-arching point i just wanted to address that part. I probably should have quoted with precision but editing large posts on this device im using is a fucking chore. Thought i did specifically say i was talking about your first sentences if you go back and read it. Then i went on to explaining some of my insight on the whole "white culture dying due to the foreing cultural subversion " thingy which was not an specific criticism of you nor was it really very in depth. It was just a criticism against a generalized notion of "cultural relativists" who may have forgotten that everything they know and value may not be if not for their intellectual ancenstors and how small and tenuous this legacy is demographic wise.

[Fickle]

Baruch

Every individual and society, has a view of itself internally ... and by others externally.  Both views are required.  In times past, natives/others were not allowed to speak for themselves ... we spoke for them (while arrogantly viewing them as primitives and colonized).  It is like Custer trying to tell me what it is like to be a Lakota.  He had a view, but so had Crazy Horse ... to understand what happened between those to men, you would have to understand both views.  White guilt or Native chauvinism are ... not an objective story.

I hear you, I have always been on the cutting edge of science and technology and I live it but that is not my dream. My dream is a nice little log cabin on a clear calm lake with me sitting on the dock with a fishing rod in one hand and a warm cup of coffee in the other. It would seem a contradiction but I do not see it that way. Science is fundamentally the study of natural phenomena thus no matter how far removed I may think I am from nature, always, I am within it's realm.

I like your post and history always has a certain neutrality with respect to time. What seemed right at the time is seen later as an abomination. The key word here is insight and reflecting on how an action now might be perceived in the future. If we know the answer then why not act accordingly, do what we imagine may be right in the future now. Being ahead of the curve is most often a good thing.