[Sowsunese]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Damn right!

Man, the world would be really better off without all those animal-carcass eating barbarians. I am supremely confident that my culture is totally superior to any which actually kills and then eats the dead bodies of animals.

[celddiskend]

Lest that statement be misinterpreted - it was not meant to endorse what is commonly called "multiculturalism", but to emhpasise the idea of sovereignity, and how our emotional responses to other peoples' practices should not make us do rash things.

No matter how disgusting some practices of another culture may seem to us, it's still fundamentally their country, their state, and their business. As long as you don't try to invade and do anything to me, I'll leave you alone, too (but try to even touch me, and I'll bomb your sorry ass back to the stone age) - this is my preferred policy.

Another point is that a prohibition on the violation of another's sovereignity does not automatically mean that the culture that that sovereignity is protecting is inherently valuable. It may be something we are completely repulsed by, and we should be free to say so, and even attempt to change it using all the means that that culture permits us to use for this purpose (but, and this is important, no more), but never should we overstep our bounds and try to bring force into the equation in the pursuit of whatever our ideals are.

When I read the Islamic accounts of the conquest of India, and the descriptions the Muslim historians have left of the destruction of temples, I realise that they really, genuinely thought that they were doing a good thing. When I realised this, I also realised that judging the people was pointless - they were exactly like people today. In fact, to a great extent, even judging the ideas which they were trying to impose was equally pointless. The same attitudes, the same emotions, the same responses, just different ideas which they thought were good enough to force on others. Leaving aside the role of Islam in this whole sorry affair (for this example, it doesn't matter what caused this attitude, be it Islam or anything else, it only matters that it exists), I bring up this point only to illustrate a general principle - that no matter what we thing is good or bad, imposition of our ideas on another, specially another country, by means of force, is never, ever a good thing.

For them, it was Islam. For some today, it's communism, or socialism, or democracy, or liberalism, or whatever it is that is your pet meme. Usually, and unfortunately, the idea isn't as important as the zeal of the preacher.

[turbutbamethyg]

Excellent points, aneeshm

But I too was looking forward to seeing Ves sputter.

[car.insur]

I beat you to it:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Can you imagine if all we had to eat in this country was English food?

[Faungarne]

Diversity: lots of different sorts of beer.

Anything else is inacceptable.

Hence diversity is good.

Case closed.

Beer

[vNGiDaFX]

Stop opressing me

Diversity of words

(Yeah ****, I thought you can use both "in" or "un" here, like in the German version of the word)

[P1international]

NOOOOES! You ruined your joke! QFT!

-Arrian

[DoctorBretonDen]

Don't be a wanker, C0ckney. Everybody knows that Gay Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

This was shortly before you voted to become the US's *****es for the rest of your existence, right?

[LoisCampon]

To me, sovereignty comes second to the elimination of barbarism. I don't give a **** about your sovereignty if you're torturing, maiming, and raping your people. Aneeshm's statement smacks of moral relativism.

[Nppracph]

I stand behind the principle, despite the deceptions of those who claim to adhere to it.

[Amoniustauns]

Diversity can be good or bad, depending on what kind of diversity you're talking about. Based on my experience of different groups, I'd rather have East Asians, Indians, and Jews as neighbours than Blacks and Islamic Arabs.

Meeting people from other cultures is usually something that results in personal growth, and is mostly a positive thing. However, there are certain principles that must be shared by all, and a common language is an enormous help too.

[Aozenee]

Ethnic diversity is neither good nor bad.

Tolerance is good.

What is really good, is when people can move wherever they want, and be accepted so long as they do no harm.

There's absolutely no need to tolerate people who do harm, in fact it must NOT be tolerated.

It's not that ideologies of harm are bad per-se, it's just that they shouldn't be accepted in any society which exists to improve the welfare of all those who participate in the society*. If someone believes in an ideology of harm, they should have to abandon that ideology BEFORE joining a humane society.

The reason for that is if someone does harm to another, that may give a very slight improving in the welfare of the harmer, but it definitely has a large negative effect on the welfare of the harmee, the average welfare is thus reduced by the presence of harmers, and that is not compatible with the purpose of the society.

It's an interesting exercise to reflect on a society which exists for OTHER reasons, like maybe to minimize the average welfare of it's members... we'd probably vehemently deny that such beasts exist, but anyone with a healthy sense of cynicism would have to at least wonder...

[annouhMus]

Originally posted by Blake
It's not that ideologies of harm are bad per-se

[Kdgjhytiy]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Tough question. I would say the ideal situation would be an organization that transcends national boundries and adheres strictly to well-defined, basic principles. But then you have the problems of propaganda and corruption. If powerful country X wishes to smash poor country Y for its own nefarious purposes, it might have the power to create a media firestorm which depicts Y in a bad light. It might also have the power to influence the hypothetical transnational body.

Who guards the guards?

The system of sovereignty was devised precisely to stop powerful imperialist countries abusing small, weak ones. Historically, imperialists have always dressed their campaigns in morally righteous clothes, and they have the diplomatic and media power to generate support.

[wepoiyub]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
But then you have the problems of propaganda and corruption. If powerful country X wishes to smash poor country Y for its own nefarious purposes, it might have the power to create a media firestorm which depicts Y in a bad light. It might also have the power to influence the hypothetical transnational body.

Who guards the guards? Most of the problems you describe can occur on the national level as well though.

The system of sovereignty was devised precisely to stop powerful imperialist countries abusing small, weak ones. Well, it stems from the end of the 30 yrs war, so it's much older than classic imperialism.

[Acalsenunse]

melting pots are good. Mixed Salads are not. Divesity is only good if assimilation occurs.

oh hello apolyton.

[dumadegg]

Opressed Arabian Girls Gone Wild!

Watch as these totaly out of control Saudi women go in public without a male relative as an escort!