|
Post by jackmann on Oct 3, 2011 0:21:43 GMT -5
The problem is that while there are some aspects of Western civilization that are clearly superior to Pakistan's, it's easy to make the mistake that all aspects are, or that they would be for the people of Pakistan. That's why "Westernize" can be a little problematic here. Modernize might be better, or secularize.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 3, 2011 0:23:31 GMT -5
Just because they agree with you doesn't make the viewpoint correct. No culture is better than another, there are both positive and negative aspects of all cultures. Nonsense, this is the best culture. Holy fuck I've been looking at that thing all day and only now did I realise what I'm looking at. I've got to say, that is pretty sweet.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 3, 2011 0:27:08 GMT -5
The problem is that while there are some aspects of Western civilization that are clearly superior to Pakistan's, it's easy to make the mistake that all aspects are, or that they would be for the people of Pakistan. That's why "Westernize" can be a little problematic here. Modernize might be better, or secularize. Nobody's saying western culture is superior in every possible way. However, unless there are some aspects of Pakistani culture that are clearly superior to western culture that offsets the stuff were westerners excel, it's probably safe to say that overall western culture is superior. I realise it's subjective, but then again saying Romeo and Juliet is better than Twilight is also subjective.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 3, 2011 0:27:27 GMT -5
The problem is that while there are some aspects of Western civilization that are clearly superior to Pakistan's, it's easy to make the mistake that all aspects are, or that they would be for the people of Pakistan. That's why "Westernize" can be a little problematic here. Modernize might be better, or secularize. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Westerner, and I think being a Westerner is much better than being from one of those loser countries. However, I am very much aware that I am a product of my upbringing, as are you, and that, presumably, if either you or I had been brought up in Pakistan, we would think mediaeval suppression of women, independent thought and religious tolerance were all shit hot ideas. So, without for a moment disagreeing with you that Western culture is superior to Pakistan's so far as Westerners are concerned, I'm curious to know just who died and made you arbiter of who's culture is objectively superior to any one else's, and that "they would be better off adopting ours"?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 3, 2011 0:29:06 GMT -5
The problem is that while there are some aspects of Western civilization that are clearly superior to Pakistan's, it's easy to make the mistake that all aspects are, or that they would be for the people of Pakistan. That's why "Westernize" can be a little problematic here. Modernize might be better, or secularize. Nobody's saying western culture is superior in every possible way. However, unless there are some aspects of Pakistani culture that are clearly superior to western culture that offsets the stuff were westerners excel, it's probably safe to say that overall western culture is superior. I realise it's subjective, but then again saying Romeo and Juliet is better than Twilight is also subjective. And just as I could find you any number of Pakis who think their culture is genuinely superior to ours, I could find you any number of people ready to go to the mat on behalf of Twilight.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 3, 2011 0:53:56 GMT -5
Nobody's saying western culture is superior in every possible way. However, unless there are some aspects of Pakistani culture that are clearly superior to western culture that offsets the stuff were westerners excel, it's probably safe to say that overall western culture is superior. I realise it's subjective, but then again saying Romeo and Juliet is better than Twilight is also subjective. And just as I could find you any number of Pakis who think their culture is genuinely superior to ours, I could find you any number of people ready to go to the mat on behalf of Twilight. And like the Twitards, I look down my nose at them and laugh smugly, secure in the knowledge that I am superior to them and always will be.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 3, 2011 0:53:59 GMT -5
Here's a quick little test. Get EVERYONE in Pakistan to vote on whether on not they like their culture. Do the same in a western nation. See which one ranks higher in satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 3, 2011 0:57:52 GMT -5
Here's a quick little test. Get EVERYONE in Pakistan to vote on whether on not they like their culture. Do the same in a western nation. See which one ranks higher in satisfaction. And you are basing this on... how you think they SHOULD vote, or how they would ACTUALLY vote? People have a long history of not voting for who various intelligentsia pundits have thought they SHOULD vote for.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 3, 2011 1:51:06 GMT -5
I'm sure the vote would be closer than either side would be comfortable with. Ignorance and indoctrination will skew the results as will the wording of the referendum question. We also can't ignore the reality that in an actual vote you would likely see a great deal of voter intimidation in the form of Pakistani husbands and fathers saying 'if you go out and vote there will be an honor killing tomorrow.'
Perhaps it would be better if we asked immigrants if they would go back (to their country of origin). It might be kind of hard finding enough westerners that immigrated to Pakistan to run proper stats on though.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 3, 2011 1:55:57 GMT -5
I'm sure the vote would be closer than either side would be comfortable with. Ignorance and indoctrination will skew the results as will the wording of the referendum question. We also can't ignore the reality that in an actual vote you would likely see a great deal of voter intimidation in the form of Pakistani husbands and fathers saying 'if you go out and vote there will be an honor killing tomorrow.' Perhaps it would be better if we asked immigrants if they would go back (to their country of origin). It might be kind of hard finding enough westerners that immigrated to Pakistan to run proper stats on though. I think you would be genuionly disheartened by just how popular the status quo is in certain loser countries. For your consideration I direct you to contemplate just why it is that in so many of these places that Westerners have spent billions trying to "modernise" or "westernise" (whichever floats your ideological boat) there is such widespread, grassroots resistance to the changes for the "better".
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Oct 3, 2011 1:58:27 GMT -5
Art, the thing is, Western societies have a long history of fucking up other cultures in the name of bringing them Western Civilization. This has led to all sorts of problems, from the introduction of Nile Perch to Lake Victoria to genocide in Rwanda. Now, we've improved quite a bit. But still, rather than look for wholesale Westernization, let's just focus on the obvious problems and fix those. Leave aspects of the culture that seem to work. As well, complete rejection of their culture is likely to lead to them rejecting all Western ideas, including those we would like them to adopt.
Light, as far as who says what is superior, it's quite simple. Not abusing people because they're of a different religion? That's superior to religious persecution. Just like not murdering women because they're raped (to pull from the other Pakistani thread) is superior to honor killing. So, yeah. Maybe not everything in Western culture is superior to everything in their culture. But we can definitely point to those things and say, "Yeah, that? That's not right."
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 3, 2011 2:05:44 GMT -5
Light, as far as who says what is superior, it's quite simple. Not abusing people because they're of a different religion? That's superior to religious persecution. Just like not murdering women because they're raped (to pull from the other Pakistani thread) is superior to honor killing. So, yeah. Maybe not everything in Western culture is superior to everything in their culture. But we can definitely point to those things and say, "Yeah, that? That's not right." By what standards are you judging what's "right" though? As I'm trying to make painfully clear, yes, I agree that not persecuting people because of religious differences is a good thing. But by what template do you conclude that our society which doesn't is inherently superior to those that do? Imagine, just for a moment, that I came from such a culture where religious persecution is commonplace. We have a long history of it and a well developed apologetic and justification for it. What objective fact can you point to to show that your non persecutory culture is superior to my persecuting one?
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 3, 2011 2:07:14 GMT -5
Morality and what is 'right' is always subjective. Lighthorseman is right, we are a product of our societies. For the most part we believe such things to be wrong, but you get people like the phelpses and other conservative religious people in the west who also agree with the Pakistani set of morals.
My personal opinion is that such things are barbaric. If I had to I would probably try and have my opinions on right and wrong implemented in those countries. However, as all are entitled to their opinions, there will be just as many people who believe in the current status.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 3, 2011 3:13:57 GMT -5
Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts.
Killing someone without a legitimate reason serves no purpose. Killing someone for being the victim of a crime is not a legitimate reason to any sane person. It accomplishes nothing for the society. However, even if one believes the death penalty to be barbaric, killing the person who commits a crime has a net benefit for society in preventing future crime from someone who has demonstrated they are willing to break the law. Therefore, it is a fact that killing the victim of a crime while those that commit it walk free is inferior to the other way around.
Morality is not always subjective. Most morality stems from the fact that we are a social species. Actions that benefit the society are moral. Actions that harm the society are immoral. Actions with no impact on the well-being of society are neutral. This has, however, been warped over thousands of years of religious indoctrination, sometimes, such as in Pakistan's case, where the very opposite of what is innately moral is held as virtuous.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 3, 2011 3:17:47 GMT -5
Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. Killing someone without a legitimate reason serves no purpose. Killing someone for being the victim of a crime is not a legitimate reason to any sane person. In your SUBJECTIVE opinion.
|
|