Hi! Alle 18:33, sabato 11 marzo 2006, Paul Davis ha scritto: > the USA has historically acted in a way that suggests a profound > institutional fear; a fear of creating laws that rely on somnewhat arbitary > "lines" which when you cross them invite a different legal response than > when you stay on the other side. 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...). 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. 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'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:) Sorry for the OT! Byez! Carotinho ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it
