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