Are all cultures equal?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2016, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 03:54 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Are all cultures equal?
Yes.

Drinking Beverage

Thread moved to the Philosophy section.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
23-02-2016, 07:25 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(22-02-2016 04:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 11:32 AM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  I've noticed they try to use the argument that the "hijab" gives them a larger sense of freedom. It's a strange position to take.

The most common answer is that it is being less beholden to standards of physical appearance that is liberating.

Which is not strange at all...

But it then sets its own standards.

That is also the most common answer in the Western world. I doubt it very much in the countries where that culture is the superior culture.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 08:30 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(22-02-2016 04:38 PM)DerFish Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 12:27 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I don't think that all cultures are equal. If you want example just look at female genital mutilation. To make people suffer in name of idiocy is a hallmark of culture worthy nothing but scorn.

I never figured out why female genital mutilation is any worse than male genital mutilation as was done to me and all my brothers.
Can you enlighten me? Why not be against all genital mutilation?

Most male circomcision are made while the person in question is still an infant. The foreskin is not a very sensitive part of the body either, especially not at that age. Removing the foreskin is a pretty simple procedure that doesn't damage or hinder sexual activity in any way. In fact, it can have some benefit in terms of health since the foreskin, being closed for the first few months, can become a source of infection in low sanitary envioronments. It might also help make the transmission of certain sexualy transmitted diseases more difficult, but evidence of that is contestable. Female genital mutilation is actualy targetting a much more senitive part of the human anathomy and more extansive. Female circoncision cuts away what would be considered the glans in the male penis (and sometime the glans and a portion of the shaft). It can cause massive infections, provoke important urinary problem and damage severely the capacity for a women to have a normal sexual life. It's also good to note that those female genital mutilation are done, not while in infant age where trauma of that sort could be less psychologically damaging, but at the onset of puberty. Considering the dangers, the extant, the concequences and the pain differences between the two proceedures, it's dishonest to put them on equal footing. Female genital mutilation is much, much worse on all account since one can make the case for male circomcision having more benefit than risks. It's also good to note that the core reasons behind the two type of genital mutilation aren't the same either. That being said, one should not remove the foreskin of a child without medical advice else this would indeed be a useless form of mutilation. I hope this help you a bit.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
23-02-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(23-02-2016 08:25 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:38 PM)DerFish Wrote:  I never figured out why female genital mutilation is any worse than male genital mutilation as was done to me and all my brothers.
Can you enlighten me? Why not be against all genital mutilation?

Most male circomcision are made while the person in question is still an infant. The foreskin is not a very sensitive part of the body either, especially not at that age. Removing the foreskin is a pretty simple procedure that doesn't damage or hinder sexual activity in any way.

Flat out wrong. Not only are tens of thousands of sensory nerve endings removed, tens of thousands more in the glans are exposed and will lose much of their sensitivity by that exposure.

Quote:In afact, it can have some benefit in terms of health since the foreskin, being closed for the first few months, can become a source of infection in low sanitary envioronments.

Then confine it to low-sanitary environments

Quote:It might also help make the transmission of certain ssexualy transmitted disease more difficult, but evidence of that is contestable.

It is very questionable.

Quote:Female genital mutilation is is actualy targetting a much more senitive part of the human anathomy. Female circoncision cuts away what would be considered the glans in the male penis (and somtime the glans and a portion of the shaft). It can cause massive infections, provoke urinary problem and damage severely the capacity for a women to have a normal sexual life. It's also good to note that those female genital mutilation happen, not while in infant age where trauma of that sort could be less psychologically damaging, but at the onset of puberty. Considering the dangers, the extant, the concequences and the pain difference between the two proceedure, it's dishonest to put them on equal footing.

Except that they are both violent human rights violations.

Quote:Female genital mutilation is much, much worse on all account. It's also good to note that the core reasons behind the two type of genital mutilation aren't the same either. That being said, one should not remove the foreskin of a child without medical advice else this would indeed be a useless form of mutilation. I hope this help you a bit.

Yes, without a valid medical reason, it is an unconscionable act of barbarism.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-02-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
Equal how?

Deserving of empathy? Yes

Capable of designing a humane society? No

Sufficiently educated to contribute to the betterment of humans in general? No

What criteria are we looking at here?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
23-02-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(23-02-2016 08:25 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:38 PM)DerFish Wrote:  I never figured out why female genital mutilation is any worse than male genital mutilation as was done to me and all my brothers.
Can you enlighten me? Why not be against all genital mutilation?

Most male circomcision are made while the person in question is still an infant. The foreskin is not a very sensitive part of the body either, especially not at that age. Removing the foreskin is a pretty simple procedure that doesn't damage or hinder sexual activity in any way. In fact, it can have some benefit in terms of health since the foreskin, being closed for the first few months, can become a source of infection in low sanitary envioronments. It might also help make the transmission of certain sexualy transmitted diseases more difficult, but evidence of that is contestable. Female genital mutilation is actualy targetting a much more senitive part of the human anathomy and more extansive. Female circoncision cuts away what would be considered the glans in the male penis (and sometime the glans and a portion of the shaft). It can cause massive infections, provoke important urinary problem and damage severely the capacity for a women to have a normal sexual life. It's also good to note that those female genital mutilation are done, not while in infant age where trauma of that sort could be less psychologically damaging, but at the onset of puberty. Considering the dangers, the extant, the concequences and the pain differences between the two proceedures, it's dishonest to put them on equal footing. Female genital mutilation is much, much worse on all account since one can make the case for male circomcision having more benefit than risks. It's also good to note that the core reasons behind the two type of genital mutilation aren't the same either. That being said, one should not remove the foreskin of a child without medical advice else this would indeed be a useless form of mutilation. I hope this help you a bit.

This might be TMI, but my foreskin is super sensitive.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
23-02-2016, 09:46 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(23-02-2016 09:09 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 08:25 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Most male circomcision are made while the person in question is still an infant. The foreskin is not a very sensitive part of the body either, especially not at that age. Removing the foreskin is a pretty simple procedure that doesn't damage or hinder sexual activity in any way. In fact, it can have some benefit in terms of health since the foreskin, being closed for the first few months, can become a source of infection in low sanitary envioronments. It might also help make the transmission of certain sexualy transmitted diseases more difficult, but evidence of that is contestable. Female genital mutilation is actualy targetting a much more senitive part of the human anathomy and more extansive. Female circoncision cuts away what would be considered the glans in the male penis (and sometime the glans and a portion of the shaft). It can cause massive infections, provoke important urinary problem and damage severely the capacity for a women to have a normal sexual life. It's also good to note that those female genital mutilation are done, not while in infant age where trauma of that sort could be less psychologically damaging, but at the onset of puberty. Considering the dangers, the extant, the concequences and the pain differences between the two proceedures, it's dishonest to put them on equal footing. Female genital mutilation is much, much worse on all account since one can make the case for male circomcision having more benefit than risks. It's also good to note that the core reasons behind the two type of genital mutilation aren't the same either. That being said, one should not remove the foreskin of a child without medical advice else this would indeed be a useless form of mutilation. I hope this help you a bit.

This might be TMI, but my foreskin is super sensitive.

From personal observations, foreskin makes masturbation a ton easier and more pleasurable. It's like your very own vagina to slide along...

That said, I am glad I don't have all that vulnerable stuff dangling between my legs Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
23-02-2016, 10:51 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(23-02-2016 08:36 AM)Dom Wrote:  Equal how?

Deserving of empathy? Yes

Capable of designing a humane society? No

Sufficiently educated to contribute to the betterment of humans in general? No

What criteria are we looking at here?


Like I said I guess my question is a bit ambiguous. Hm.

I'm MAINLY interested in the aspect of morality. Although I mean to ask whether they deserve equal rights and equal respect.

For example, should one accommodate to cultural sensitivities in ones own culture. Even when accomodating another culture may contradict or even betray the continuity of ones own culture in its entirety?

A basic example would be freedom of speech (in the US sense, as I don't think European freedom of speech is as extensive as that of our cross-Atlantic cousins)

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
Since some cultural values are entirely incompatible with one another, I would say no.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 11:23 AM
RE: Are all cultures equal?
(23-02-2016 11:12 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  Since some cultural values are entirely incompatible with one another, I would say no.

This is where the debate starts, though.

What is the ultimate standard? The Platonic form? Is there one?

If there is no actual set of universal values all cultures are both equal and unequal at the time same.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: