The Refugee Crisis

[mauricio]

Mauricio ... while I do appreciate the ideal of free speech and free thought ... I recognize how circumscribed it is in practice.  Shoe is being empirical, you are being rationalist.  Shoe is on the ground in the alligator pit, you are up in the air as a nattering nabob (intellectualization).  You are very smart, but sometimes it seems you disconnect from real people.  I may be wrong, but I was like that when I was young.

Naturally I prefer Western civilization, it is the Matrix I was born to.  But I have tried to be open minded and tolerant of alternatives.  This isn't to say that I approve of bad behavior.  If I condemn, I try to do it generically, not bigoted like pr126 does.  I once had a chance to interview for a job in Saudi Arabia (computer aided drafting) ... I had a friend who already worked there.  But I am glad I didn't take up on that.  The culture and climate are too extreme.  I am not masochist like Lawrence of Arabia.  Now that I am older I am pretty much a 65 - 75 deg F guy, and I don't like office drama.  Another guy I knew who worked there and liked it, a chemistry professor ... was bothered by the encouragement he got from his students, to attend public executions ;-(

Im perfectly capable of understanding the differences between ideals and practice. Thank you very much. You still cannot refute the validity of an idea because some people somewhere have proclaimed to hold those ideas and betrayed them. If anything you would need to demonstrate that it neccesarily follows from human nature that this ideas are untenable. But then my argument is not that this ideas are perfect, merely that they are superior to more authoritarian and arrogant ones which seek to dictate to everyone else without rationally justifying their statements. This is pretty simple. If you abandon rationality then having any honest dialogue or negotiation is impossible. Wich means transference of information between the individuals breaks and no compromise can be found. Nothing good comes out of irrationality when we need to transfer clear meanings to properly organize our society, it is too chaotic.

[mauricio]

Baruch
It is strange and fundamentally it's like debating the most intelligent and equitable way to destroy humanity. This person say's my way is the best and another say's their way is the best but all produce the same outcome. Which begs the question, does it really matter in the end if the end is always the same?.

.

Of course it matters. You could eliminate poverty by killing all poor people or you could eliminate the factors that produce poverty. Both may end up with the elimination of poverty, but are obviously widely different outcomes. Same thing with different cultures and their ways, even if they ultimately collapse, the progress, the lessons and their influence varies.

[josephpalazzo]

It is strange that most people have zero comprehension of what it would be like to be unlike anyone they know...but someone different. Oh most all claim to be different but in fact they seldom if ever are, they are simply shadows of someone else.

It's nearly impossible to step out of yourself. You might sympathize with someone's pov, you might even digest someone else's idea, wholly or partly, but at the end of the day, you speak from your own worldview, your pov, your core values, your priorities, your self-interests... etc. This is not a fault, it is what it is. Some will support you, others will trash you. And history books abound with violence from groups of people coming from different worldviews. It's a fact that some worldviews are irreconcilable. And so this forces you, as an individual, to take sides.

[Fickle]

mauricio

Of course it matters. You could eliminate poverty by killing all poor people or you could eliminate the factors that produce poverty. Both may end up with the elimination of poverty, but are obviously widely different outcomes.

If poverty is eliminated then the outcome or end is the same.

Same thing with different cultures and their ways, even if they ultimately collapse, the progress, the lessons and their influence varies.

If all the different cultures ultimately collapse then the outcome or end is the same.

My point was Muslim, Christain or otherwise makes no difference if in the end they destroy each other because they are all destroyed. It is like two people arguing about the best way to commit suicide... who cares your just as dead either way. It is an absurd debate and no debate is really needed.

Most countries have a big old red button which triggers their nuclear weapons and is said to protect their beliefs, culture and way of life. This is their way of saying if our way does not survive then no way will survive and we will kill everyone. I mean it makes terrorism look mild in comparison and if they cannot have their way then everyone must die. So tell me about all your culture, tell me how they are all different or some how reasonable when there is little reason in any of them.

Your not seeing the big picture and little has actually changed from a psychological standpoint since the dark ages. The faces and technology have changed over time however most all still have the same narrow minded quite fucked up sense of being as their ancestors did. From my perspective it's like watching a horde of damn dirty apes fighting over a bannana wrapped in hand grenades and you just know it isn't going to end well.

[mauricio]

mauricioIf poverty is eliminated then the outcome or end is the same.
If all the different cultures ultimately collapse then the outcome or end is the same.

This sounds like a complete consequentionalist stance.  Are you focusing on one fact of that hypothetical society and claiming that because they both shared that fact ( collapse or elimination of poverty) they were no better or worse than each other? How could you know that without really addressing any of their contents other than that single fact. You would be literally ignoring everything else surrounding that fact like all the repercussions of elimitating poverty by murder or organically. And claiming the result is the same. Seems shortsighted.

[Baruch]

Im perfectly capable of understanding the differences between ideals and practice. Thank you very much. You still cannot refute the validity of an idea because some people somewhere have proclaimed to hold those ideas and betrayed them. If anything you would need to demonstrate that it neccesarily follows from human nature that this ideas are untenable. But then my argument is not that this ideas are perfect, merely that they are superior to more authoritarian and arrogant ones which seek to dictate to everyone else without rationally justifying their statements. This is pretty simple. If you abandon rationality then having any honest dialogue or negotiation is impossible. Wich means transference of information between the individuals breaks and no compromise can be found. Nothing good comes out of irrationality when we need to transfer clear meanings to properly organize our society, it is too chaotic.

I do not agree with Shoe, that everything that comes from the pen of a Western person, is just a commentary on Rudyard Kipling.  But in academic anthropology, she is probably right to be morality neutral.  But none of us are academic anthropologists anyway.  I prefer what I prefer, and I more closely match you, than Shoe in my preferences.  But then we are both Western, and she is not.

[pr126]

Another 3 million expected this year. At least.

Many thanks to Obama.

If you think this will not happen in the USA you are not paying attention.
You are witnessing Utopia in the making. Hope you will like it.



http://youtu.be/oAdM8ri88uQ

[Baruch]

Glad you are back.  I was worried about you.