The Refugee Crisis

[drunkenshoe]

Would you say that European's concern about their future is totally unfounded?
Are the European people culpable for their irresponsible leaders actions?

Oh but Middle Easterners should to take every invasion, war; policies and games that raped and destroyed their country, killing millions of people like animals, because it is an 'honour' coming from their superiors and also they are culpable for it, right? And continue to live in ruins dropping dead, actually they should sacrifice themselves by resisting their survivial urges.


Everyone is bound to have some bias against something, but yours is just ugly in a way like a politican's tongue. These two lines you drop here is nowhere near to your propaganda or the opinions you sell about the issue.

You won't have some peace of mind until people start to die in streets. You'll have it soon, don't worry.

[Baruch]

Would you say that European's concern about their future is totally unfounded?
Are the European people culpable for their irresponsible leaders actions?

Those are really good questions.  And they aren't arbitrary statements of opinion.

If people are smart, they shouldn't be too concerned about their distant future ... they should enjoy the ride ... the only way off the roller-coaster of history is death.  I plan only for the immediate future ... the next 100 years is someone else's problem.  By that time I don't expect the EU or the US to still exist ... you can't cure stupid (recent plan in Sweden to end cash).

The second question is a great unsolved riddle.  Were the German people responsible for the Nazis?  Were the British people responsible for colonialism?  So far, when people want to deny their culpability, they put the blame on their rotten leaders.  When people want to claim their culpability, they put the credit on their brilliant leaders.  Most people outside the US today, claim to hate the US government, but love the American people.  This is a cognitive band-aide ... it would be brutal to acknowledge (if one is pro-American) that the American people are just as rotten as their leaders.

[pr126]

Do you, as an American citizen feel culpable for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the disastrous Middle East foreign policy in Egypt ( supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, arming, financing the Taleban, ISIS)  by the American administration? With your tax dollars?

[drunkenshoe]

Then why does it bother you when over a billion muslims don't care about Islamic terrorism in the world?

Your propaganda is that this is a support for the Jihad and how organised, planned this is on a global scale, working like a well oiled machine.

[mauricio]

You are using it to justify double standards. With a bunch of other members. You are using it to defend that one culture; yours is superior to others. That include anything you spew up there.

It's your bullshit called out here.

What double standard? Im just defending that a culture that allows self determination of ethical systems and ideas is superior to another that imposes them and represses dissent like saudi arabia. Like i said in another post the only moral compulsion when no ethical system or ideology has proven their shit beyond any skeptical analysis is to keep the field open and that means allowing the self determination of individuals in their thoughts and actions without limiting those of others. In this sense a western liberal secular democracy is generally superior to the theocratic regimes of the middle east. You have not called bullshit on anything unless you can refute that notion. Better explained in the post Sirvas made.

BTW you have failed to acknownledge how the word cultural relativism is used to mean moral relativism and that is a corruption that i have not made, which is used to deflect criticism of theocratic regimes. I only respond to the people that use it in that way. Words have multiple meanings depending on context and speakers.

[drunkenshoe]

What double standard? Im just defending that a culture that allows self determination of ethical systems and ideas is superior to another that imposes them and repress dissent like saudi arabia. Like i said in another post the only moral compulsion when no ethical system or ideology has proven their shit beyond any skeptical analysis is to keep the field open and that means allowing the self determination of individuals in their thoughts and actions without limiting those of others. In this sense a western liberal secular democracy is generally superior to the theocratic regimes of the middle east.

Unfortunately, nothing is limited with regimes and their colurful definitions in real life, marucio. Theocratic Middle Eastern regimes have become a problem when they became profitable. These are actual countries with people living in it. They are not some ideas or models of lives floating in the air. Nobody has given or gives a flying fuck about who is suffering where from what. Ever.

America is in big trouble. From gun issue to prisons, economy to crime, racism, cop violence, domestic issues, international issues...etc. But they give you a bunch of things to swallow and chew  -look at Middle East, look how great you have- and you people automatically create an imaginary set of problems, ignoring anything real and tying all this shit together with from feminism, racial groups to 'regressive' European left and refugee crisis.

And then turn and talk about defending the superiority of a culture that allows 'self determination of ethical system and ideas' ffs.

What is this precious culture of self determination you have? What are you able to self determine as a culture? Or you as an individual? You are going through exactly what Turkey went through a decade ago right now -and this is the first time 'turkish rubes' got in power here since the fucking ottoman empire- before that you had Bush administration and all you are chewing is a culture of what THAT administration created to justify its recent actions in the Middle East. And this is what you keep pitching. A delusion of an imaginary evil compared to a delusion of what you were born into. Before that there was the American culture of self determination against Communism. Same culture, same shit.

People are not getting their heads cut for being an atheist in the US, it's all better than the ME. All those resources, power, money, opportunities and you are better than Middle East. Bravo.

You know what, if that piece of shit wins, if republican policies really get enforced, it will divide an already angry, armed population so fucking bad, they are going to watch the flames from Canada while white liberals will stay at home and discuss how superior their culture compared to ME and how 'regressive' the European left is and complain about SJWs.

What was that phrase? Champagne taste on a beer budget? Something like that. That's the situation America is in.

And you still have no idea what cultural relativism is. None. Zilch. Nada.

[josephpalazzo]

What double standard? Im just defending that a culture that allows self determination of ethical systems and ideas is superior to another that imposes them and represses dissent like saudi arabia.

I'm not sure if the word "superior" is appropriate in this context, as the word carries so much baggage in terms of dominance, primacy, ascendancy. The "advantages" of a secular open society is that the citizens get to express openly their feelings, while in autocratic/theocratic countries, those feelings - frustration, anger, discontent and so on -are there but don't have a channel to express them publicly. So democracy is ugly, inefficient and erratic, our elections are downright ugly. That's because everyone is hanging their dirty clothes out there. In lieu of "superior" I would use "preferable" or "desirable", and I'm saying that in terms of the common folk's point of view. Those who belong to the top 1% don't care about the common folks, in fact even in a secular open society, they work in every which way to skew the system in their favors. If any of them would read this post, they would probably have a good laugh.

[mauricio]

Unfortunately, nothing is limited with regimes and their colurful definitions in real life, marucio. Theocratic Middle Eastern regimes have become a problem when they became profitable. These are actual countries with people living in it. They are not some ideas or models of lives floating in the air. Nobody has given or gives a flying fuck about who is suffering where from what. Ever.

America is in big trouble. From gun issue to prisons, economy to crime, racism, cop violence, domestic issues, international issues...etc. But they give you a bunch of things to swallow and chew  -look at Middle East, look how great you have- and you people automatically create an imaginary set of problems, ignoring anything real and tying all this shit together with from feminism, racial groups to 'regressive' European left and refugee crisis.

And then turn and talk about defending the superiority of a culture that allows 'self determination of ethical system and ideas' ffs.

What is this precious culture of self determination you have? What are you able to self determine as a culture? Or you as an individual? You are going through exactly what Turkey went through a decade ago right now -and this is the first time 'turkish rubes' got in power here since the fucking ottoman empire- before that you had Bush administration and all you are chewing is a culture of what THAT administration created to justify its recent actions in the Middle East. And this is what you keep pitching. A delusion of an imaginary evil compared to a delusion of what you were born into. Before that there was the American culture of self determination against Communism. Same culture, same shit.

People are not getting their heads cut for being an atheist in the US, it's all better than the ME. All those resources, power, money, opportunities and you are better than Middle East. Bravo.

You know what, if that piece of shit wins, if republican policies really get enforced, it will divide an already angry, armed population so fucking bad, they are going to watch the flames from Canada while white liberals will stay at home and discuss how superior their culture compared to ME and how 'regressive' the European left is and complain about SJWs.

What was that phrase? Champagne taste on a beer budget? Something like that. That's the situation America is in.

And you still have no idea what cultural relativism is. None. Zilch. Nada.

You have not addresed the claim that a culture that allows greater self determination is superior to one that represses it. In the western world you have freedom of religion and freedom of speech even if not perfectly applied it is still far better than getting lashed or crucified in saudi arabia that is undeniable fact. It allows for public discourse to occur and for ideas to spread and be tested against each other even if some of those ideas not the most conductivity to progress this is the neccesary baseline for any truly democratic and liberal society, otherwise we would have an elite of arrogant people who proclaim to know better than everyone else and impose their ideas with the threat of violence behind them. This is obviously partially true of the western world libertarian-authoritarian is a continuum. That does not diminish the huge problems this society also faces. You can scoff at  if it is no big thing but it is still true and supports my point which you have failed to address much less refute. So why are you even talking to me if you are not going to engage with my ideas? BTW i do understand what cultural relativism is according to that wikipedia article at least why can't you acknowledge the fact that it's distortion as  to defend saudi arabia style ethical impositions on it's population is a real thing that has happened and must be shown to be for what it is. Deflection due to the inability to justify the imposition of their flawed ethical systems on their entire population of whom many do not wish it and therefore are burtally repressed.

[mauricio]

I'm not sure if the word "superior" is appropriate in this context, as the word carries so much baggage in terms of dominance, primacy, ascendancy. The "advantages" of a secular open society is that the citizens get to express openly their feelings, while in autocratic/theocratic countries, those feelings - frustration, anger, discontent and so on -are there but don't have a channel to express them publicly. So democracy is ugly, inefficient and erratic, our elections are downright ugly. That's because everyone is hanging their dirty clothes out there. In lieu of "superior" I would use "preferable" or "desirable", and I'm saying that in terms of the common folk's point of view. Those who belong to the top 1% don't care about the common folks, in fact even in a secular open society, they work in every which way to skew the system in their favors. If any of them would read this post, they would probably have a good laugh.

I agree with this, by superior i just mean better in the sense that it at least has the correct baseline and philosophy to allow for interesting results that take into account more of the will of it's citizens and tries to keep a more neutral ground for them to struggle ideologically. This does not mean this society will neccesary produce better results in every sense compared to others. Also ultimately all this things are gradations there's degrees of self dtermination allowed to the citizens no absolute on/off states of freedom and repression.

[mauricio]

You have no reason to oppose unless you can demonstrate theres's a flaw on the self determination argument and propose a better baseline for a society. You can argue that the USA is tyranically that does not really address my point thought. Even if the USA fails to meet this standards that doesnot shown them to be flawed. The USA has been corrupted by interest groups members of an oligopoly for a long time. The culture born of the enlightment and the scientific revolution is still a shining beacon for the way forward.

[drunkenshoe]

You have not addresed the claim that a culture that allows greater self determination is superior to one that represses it.In the western world you have freedom of religion and freedom of speech even if not perfectly applied it is still far better than getting lashed or crucified in saudi arabia that is undeniable fact. It allows for public discourse to occur and for ideas to spread and be tested against each other even if some of those ideas not the most conductivity to progress this is the neccesary baseline for any truly democratic and liberal society, otherwise we would have an elite of arrogant people who proclaim to know better than everyone else and impose their ideas with the threat of violence behind them. This is obviously partially true of the western world libertarian-authoritarian is a continuum. That does not diminish the huge problems this society also faces. You can scoff at  if it is no big thing but it is still true and supports my point which you have failed to address much less refute. So why are you even talking to me if you are not going to engage with my ideas? BTW i do understand what cultural relativism is according to that wikipedia article at least why can't you acknowledge the fact that it's distortion as  to defend saudi arabia style ethical impositions on it's population is a real thing that has happened and must be shown to be for what it is. Deflection due to the inability to justify the imposition of their flawed ethical systems on their entire population of whom many do not wish it and therefore are burtally repressed.

Refuting what? What is this idea of yours I refuse to engage and fail to 'refute'. Everything you write points out how much you don't know about what culture is. How organic, alive, ever changing; the countless dynamics and forces that shape it, how homogeneous it is. If you are  looking for practical solutions, this is the subject of politics and economy and time; becuse culture is a product these. If you are just looking for exchanging ideas in a reasonable-rational manner, why the hell you are trying to go against a basic anthropological principle just because you find a soverign monarch policies abhorrent. Do you think I like it, or Shir likes it, because I am -or he is- trying to explain something to you here?

See, this is what I have been ranting about American culture all along. This is what I mean when I define a lot of things people defend here as 'designed products'. Teaching nothing, informing noone. But just imposing identities and forms of existences in American culture. There are sets of products designed for certain existenecs for many groups. It's like a freaking 4d menu. Atheists---this way. Seculars ---turn left. White Christians---turn right. But actually nothing is much different.

When it comes to the organic messed up tangled web or people; culture, there is nothing than the specific research imprisoned into a few University library. Why? Because the so called American liberal intellectuals either percieves social sciences is just a pile consisted of gender studies and liberal art courses and rejects it OR just use it for organising and promoting and imposing their individual beliefs on culture. Plus you can't make a cool video of cultural problems. It's either sensational scandals or propaganda.

You are asking me to 'refute' an idea that is based on one's home culture over another one with completely different circumstances by comparison. I cannot over state the invalidty; absurdity of this position.

[Baruch]

Do you, as an American citizen feel culpable for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the disastrous Middle East foreign policy in Egypt ( supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, arming, financing the Taleban, ISIS)  by the American administration? With your tax dollars?

Yes, American history, particularly since the Eisenhower administration ... is a Rocky Horror Picture Show.  On the other hand, my pragmatic cynicism says ... it is OK to rob and kill people ... rape not so much.  Thanks to Shoe I have gotten past the hypocrisy.  I am a stranger in a strange land.  I am still directly supporting crime as part of the US government syndicate ... I am much more connected than a mere taxpayer.  Taxpayers try to deny culpability all the time, by saying that their government doesn't represent them, or it is some other Congressman, not theirs, who is an ass-hat.  The belly of the beast is where I have worked most of my life (though I did spend some time in commerce, selling ice cubes to Eskimos).  And most of the people I have worked with are damn fine people.  People are what they are ... and it is difficult and painful to get past the idealizations of childhood.

But this is not to say, that I personally recommend militarism, imperialism, even Western colonialism, as a smart thing to do.  I am much less worried about morality once I got past what little self-righteousness I had.  I am more worried by the stupidity of it all.

[Baruch]

Mauricio ... while I do appreciate the ideal of free speech and free thought ... I recognize how circumscribed it is in practice.  Shoe is being empirical, you are being rationalist.  Shoe is on the ground in the alligator pit, you are up in the air as a nattering nabob (intellectualization).  You are very smart, but sometimes it seems you disconnect from real people.  I may be wrong, but I was like that when I was young.

Naturally I prefer Western civilization, it is the Matrix I was born to.  But I have tried to be open minded and tolerant of alternatives.  This isn't to say that I approve of bad behavior.  If I condemn, I try to do it generically, not bigoted like pr126 does.  I once had a chance to interview for a job in Saudi Arabia (computer aided drafting) ... I had a friend who already worked there.  But I am glad I didn't take up on that.  The culture and climate are too extreme.  I am not masochist like Lawrence of Arabia.  Now that I am older I am pretty much a 65 - 75 deg F guy, and I don't like office drama.  Another guy I knew who worked there and liked it, a chemistry professor ... was bothered by the encouragement he got from his students, to attend public executions ;-(

[Fickle]

Baruch

But this is not to say, that I personally recommend militarism, imperialism, even Western colonialism, as a smart thing to do.  I am much less worried about morality once I got past what little self-righteousness I had.  I am more worried by the stupidity of it all.

It is strange and fundamentally it's like debating the most intelligent and equitable way to destroy humanity. This person say's my way is the best and another say's their way is the best but all produce the same outcome. Which begs the question, does it really matter in the end if the end is always the same?. They say no civilization can last and I believe this is true and it may be that the missing piece of the puzzle was a universal mind. As if to say, I'm not picking any sides because your all insane and I'm opting out of the stupidity I see down here on planet Earth. It is strange that most people have zero comprehension of what it would be like to be unlike anyone they know...but someone different. Oh most all claim to be different but in fact they seldom if ever are, they are simply shadows of someone else.

[mauricio]

Refuting what? What is this idea of yours I refuse to engage and fail to 'refute'. Everything you write points out how much you don't know about what culture is. How organic, alive, ever changing; the countless dynamics and forces that shape it, how homogeneous it is. If you are  looking for practical solutions, this is the subject of politics and economy and time; becuse culture is a product these. If you are just looking for exchanging ideas in a reasonable-rational manner, why the hell you are trying to go against a basic anthropological principle just because you find a soverign monarch policies abhorrent. Do you think I like it, or Shir likes it, because I am -or he is- trying to explain something to you here?

You say i'm trying to go against the basic principle of anthropology when I already showed a difference between usages of the concept of cultural relativism and specifically mentioned which one i argue against, which is the one that makes a statement on ethics and epistemology(specially when it is used to deflect when asking for justification of certain ethical systems) not the one which is a way to understand a culture from within by regarding their customs from their own viewpoint for a better understanding of their social system. Why should i bother with you if after stating various times and providing citations you still pretend like it does not exist? So what is it do you think both usages describe the same thing? This is what i mean by you being unable to address my actual points. You do not engage the details which are important and then end up responding with statements which i find to relate only vaguely to my points or misinterpret them.You seem to have a real hard time actually understanding what I'm trying to say even after i have clarified my definitions and tried to make explicit my original implications.