Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yep.

I think we just identified ourselves as moral relativists, though. (I prefer "moral pragmatist," myself.) Our essential disagreement with Spanky's solution to his problem is that we don't think there is a problem.

We must have read too much Nietzche in godless liberal colleges.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not the fact of the screaming itself -- that's not what I'm saying. It's that having a fuller understanding of the facts of female circumcision -- being confronted with what it entails -- will tend to persuade people that it's wrong.

The world changes, and old facts appear in a new light. The world is not that very different from the way it was 10 years ago, and yet we are in the midst of an argument about the morality of gay marriage which would have seemed alien a decade ago. Many minds have already changed, and there is widespread discussion and acceptance of things that would have seemed loopy or revolutionary not long ago. Why do you think this happened?



It causes pain and suffering which cannot be justified in the name of tradition.

Hell, even male circumcision is a tough call.

Why is pain and suffering bad? Why is causing it bad. Why is tradition not more important than pain and suffering? I don't think you can argue morality. It is like that Supreme Court justice said about pornography, you just know it when you see it. I think the discussions about morality just get people more in touch with their instincts about morality. I think the discussion about Homosexual tolerance is classic example. People don't like homosexuals because they instinctually fear what is different. That is an instinct that has helped us survive. But once they see that their hatred of homosexuality is based on fear, their moral instinct comes through and tells them to accept people for who they are. If our instincts about morality come from mutations (like the fear instinct) then our morality should be diverging. But in forty years I think homosexuality will be accepted everywhere. Morality is converging which wouldn't happen unless the instinct came from somewhere else besides a mutation.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And yet I do not see where you're headed, or even where you are now.

[hint to Ty (even though effeminate)]Aphganistan and Iraq[hint to Ty]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I think we just identified ourselves as moral relativists, though. (I prefer "moral pragmatist," myself.) Our essential disagreement with Spanky's solution to his problem is that we don't think there is a problem.

We must have read too much Nietzche in godless liberal colleges.

I think the problem he's identified is that any moral statement that one can make can be answered with the further question, "But why?", except for the statement, "Because God says so." If there's a problem here, it's with the view that the exception has some special logical validity. If you're satisfied with that, why not be satisfied with, "Just because" (works on my four-year-old sometimes) or something essentially similar.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the problem he's identified is that any moral statement that one can make can be answered with the further question, "But why?", except for the statement, "Because God says so." If there's a problem here, it's with the view that the exception has some special logical validity. If you're satisfied with that, why not be satisfied with, "Just because" (works on my four-year-old sometimes) or something essentially similar.

This is different from you merely supporting your arguments by quoting blogs how?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[hint to Ty (even though effeminate)]Aphganistan and Iraq[hint to Ty]

Quite right. We should have sent delegations to Saddam and the Taliban to tell them to stop hurting people. I don't know why I didn't think of that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is different from you merely supporting your arguments by quoting blogs how?

No links means no pesky html tags, for starters.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I think we just identified ourselves as moral relativists, though. (I prefer "moral pragmatist," myself.) Our essential disagreement with Spanky's solution to his problem is that we don't think there is a problem.

We must have read too much Nietzche in godless liberal colleges.

But if morality is relative you can't tell the Egyptians to stop their practice. I think morality is absolute. I think it is wrong that female circumssion ever happens. And I think people and countrys should do whatever they can to stop it (with in reason) until it is wiped out. If femal circumscission continues in my lifetime in North Arica it will not effect me in the least. But I just instinctually know that it is wrong, and that we should try and stop it. I don't think that instinct just comes from some mutation that helps me survive. I think that this instinct is shared by all mankind. If someone is for female circumscission it is because their mind has been screwed up by some twisted religious dogma or self serving rationalizations, but deep in their heart (really mind) they instinctively know it is wrong. They know that they are infringing on someones rights - which are universal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Quite right. We should have sent delegations to Saddam and the Taliban to tell them to stop hurting people. I don't know why I didn't think of that.

I think Club's point is that you are anti-Islam. You seem to be saying it is morally wrong.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[hint to Ty (even though effeminate)]Aphganistan and Iraq[hint to Ty]

We need a supreme being to justify our actions with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lordy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think Club's point is that you are anti-Islam. You seem to be saying it is morally wrong.

I eat pork. Does that make me anti-Jew and anti-Christian as well? (Trifecta!)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
But if morality is relative you can't tell the Egyptians to stop their practice. I think morality is absolute. I think it is wrong that female circumssion ever happens. And I think people and countrys should do whatever they can to stop it (with in reason) until it is wiped out. If femal circumscission continues in my lifetime in North Arica it will not effect me in the least. But I just instinctually know that it is wrong, and that we should try and stop it. I don't think that instinct just comes from some mutation that helps me survive. I think that this instinct is shared by all mankind. If someone is for female circumscission it is because their mind has been screwed up by some twisted religious dogma or self serving rationalizations, but deep in their heart (really mind) they instinctively know it is wrong. They know that they are infringing on someones rights - which are universal.

Honey, I instinctively know that it is wrong to take that questionable deduction on your taxes and to drive that enormous SUV you have. I think this instinct is shared by all mankind, but that some people have supressed it for some reason, but deep in their hearts and minds, they know it is wrong.

This wall is ickier than the work wall.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yep. Impose with varying degrees of success. I think that the fact that males are physically stronger had something to do with the accepted morality becoming that hacking off a clitoris and sewing a vagina shut is necessary for a woman to be "good."

But might does not make right does it. Even though these strongs males have imosed it we all know it is still wrong. How do we know it is wrong?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why is pain and suffering bad? Why is causing it bad. Why is tradition not more important than pain and suffering? I don't think you can argue morality. It is like that Supreme Court justice said about pornography, you just know it when you see it. I think the discussions about morality just get people more in touch with their instincts about morality. I think the discussion about Homosexual tolerance is classic example. People don't like homosexuals because they instinctually fear what is different. That is an instinct that has helped us survive. But once they see that their hatred of homosexuality is based on fear, their moral instinct comes through and tells them to accept people for who they are. If our instincts about morality come from mutations (like the fear instinct) then our morality should be diverging. But in forty years I think homosexuality will be accepted everywhere. Morality is converging which wouldn't happen unless the instinct came from somewhere else besides a mutation.

To the extent morality has a genetic component, I think it's probably at only the most basic level. You can change your mind without changing your gene structure. We don't need mass mutations for tolerance for homosexuals.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
But might does not make right does it. Even though these strongs males have imosed it we all know it is still wrong. How do we know it is wrong?

We strongly believe that if the women involved could make their own decision, they would not choose to endure female circumcision. We think that because of the short-term pain, the long-term health consequences, the fact that this is done to younger women who are less able to assert their own interests, and probably a bunch of other reasons.