linuxaudio.org

tim hall wrote:
> Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Not me. But Carotinho. :-)
>

quoted text
>>> But there is something that is not an "arbitrary lines". There are

>>> absolute values, like importance of human beings etc. You simply

>>> cannot put these values into discussion, because they are the

>>> foundation of social living (and not only that...).

>>

>

> Let me get this right - we are not free to discuss these values?

>

> This is your culturally conditioned assumption, not an absolute.

> Personally I would probably be happy to hang out on a site where

> Sexism and Racism are censored, however, this is not Anarchy, this is

> Socialism. The problem is, that different people have different

> interpretations of what constitutes 'Racist' or 'Sexist' - I have been

> accused of Racism for calling my friends 'Pakis' or my brother &

> sister 'half-caste', which I think has more to do with fashion than

> human rights. I also call my brother & sister my 'siblings' which is

> apparently technically incorrect, but, with all due respect you can

> swivel on my technical incorrectness :) they're MY family. I guess

> it's all relative . ;p

>

> The new-age idea

>

>>> that "everything is relative" or what else it's spelled in English,

>>> is not appliable, IMO, to human beings, otherwise everything

>>> crumbles. This is why there are laws against racism, sexism,

>>> slavery, violence etc. in all the countries, given that the freedom

>>> to think differently cannot exceeds the bounds of social livings:

>>> say what you want, but you ca't do it if it's inhuman. And we have

>>> to accept that, while conception of mankind etc. can differ from

>>> culture to culture, those absolute values remains the same.

>>

>

> This is not true.

>

>>> Example: female mutilations in Africa. They are practiced sometimes

>>> by mothers to their own daughters, since they thinks it's right.

>>> Should they be _free_ to think,

>>

>

> I think you've just insulted their culture. Genital mutilation is

> horrible in my opinion, but how about we consider male circumcision or

> purdah. Many people make these choices out of free will and from an

> informed position. What would happen if someone suggested banning

> these things? They would be accused of Racism.

>

> I'm sure they would recognize that this is a

>

>>> dishuman practice, to be banned as soon as possible, because it goes

>>> against the simplest idea of human being. They say that they are

>>> content of these practices? They are, only as we are content when

>>> people agree with us: that is, we feel that we are well inserted in

>>> a given community (think of boys that commit crimes in order of

>>> being accepted by friends etc.). So, it's relativism again, and it

>>> would destroy itself and the surrounding world: if everything is

>>> relative, even the idea that everything is relative should be

>>> relative, so nothing is sure etc. etc:)

>>

>

> I tend to subscribe to the relativistic position. But I'm not sure

> about that. I defend my and other people's right to make up our own

> minds on these issues. I'm sure if there was a nice pat solution we'd

> have given it a decent shot by now.

>

> cheers,

>

> tim hall

>

>

>

c.

--

www.cesaremarilungo.com