Posted by Roarkiller on 10.27.2013, 01:07 AM:
I think, at this point, we can agree that double posting in this thread is okay due to how lengthy an argument can be
So anyway, I decided to go back to the root cause:
quote: I think i have understood a little bit about the perspective view of western people.
It seems most think it makes them to examine a situation from a neutral point of view.
Although i do not disagree with the practice, i think there has to be a standard that is universally accepted to define something if its right or wrong.Cause we cant accept both the view but that is what perspective view says in my opinion.And that cant solve problems.
hope that happens fast.
The assumptions and twisting of words happens thick and fast from here on, but anyway.
Let's address the original argument. Saviour disagrees that examining a view from a neutral standpoint is good practice, and that a standard of "what is right and wrong" is needed. The argument is that it is impossible to accept both views (the meaning of 'both' is in limbo here), and thus so is solving problems.
The funny thing is, this is exactly how the world generally works anyhow, even in the west. So in the first place, his initial "thought" of the perspective of the western world (which you people ought to realize by now encompass only of the USA and Europe) is already wrong.
The initial oil in the fire was presented by fen:
quote: There are moral values in the "West" you know?
To be honest, I don't think "morals" was what Saviour was talking about at all, or at least not in the sense that we are accustomed to. In fact, I'm guessing it probably stemmed from the thread in Anime Misc about the Otaku culture and market, which as several pointed out, has little to do with morals in the first place.
In fact, his response to Arren cemented my belief on his stand as he begins to speak of business and profit.
The ball has rolled, however, so his next argument is as such:
quote: I can not agree with this. To my viewpoint it seems there is legal values not moral values in west. Because almost all of the time where my debates stop is where a social phenomena comes into discussion.Cause most of you[if not none] can not consider social crime to be a crime.
Actually, I happen to agree very much with this point. In fact it is because that the law continually changes to fit into society's views of morality that we have this problem in the first place. I'll discuss a few as reference.
Pedophilia
One bugbear of mine is the issue of pedophilia. To be more specific, the age group, and is closely related to the problem of the age of legality (to drink, drive, charged as an adult, etc). Also about the issue of child marriages.
Like so many issues, pedophilia is a modern concept, surprisingly. The argument is should be well known to most, so I'll skip to the counter rebuttal.
1) Anyone below 18 is judged to not have the proper mindset to make decisions. I find this horrifyingly incredulous. If so, what does that make our ancestors? How then did society progress this far? In fact I argue that it is the education system, as well as society's bad habit of treating a kid as a kid (i.e. immature) that cause the late maturity of youths today.
Someone who is "only" 17 is no more mature than one who just turned 18. In the end, it's just a number to make it easier for lawmakers. Anyone with half a brain ought to know that everyone matures differently, and turning 18 doesn't make them any less immature.
2) The definition of underaged in relation to marriage. This is just plain dumb. For one thing, marriage =/= sex.
Secondly, the age gap is a non-issue. Nobody cried foul at Heffner, now in his 90s, marrying a girl in her 20s. Look at Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. This argument is too hypocritical to be taken seriously.
3) The definition of underaged in relation to sex. This mirrors point one a LOT. Also, biologically, a girl is ready for pregnancy when she has her first period. Obviously there are outliers, like those below the age of 12, but otherwise it is simply ridiculous to suggest that a girl is not biologically ready for pregnancy at the age of, say, 16. Small bodies are equally a non-issue; dwarves give birth just fine.
My stand on this is with biology. As long as the girl has had her period, she's a woman. Psychological factors are another issue, but biology at least has my backing.
Homosexuality
Personally, I feel that this issue has too much in common with pedophilia, but whatever.
Homosexuality, until recently was regarded as a mental issue. Why did it change? Because people are more open to the idea. The history of the change in laws mirrors racism as we all know it, although I beg to differ (opinionated).
The issue of gay marriage, I believe, is an overblown and overhyped issue. In the strictest manner, marriage only appears within a cultural or religious sense. As capitalism and atheism becomes more prominent in the modern world, the very point of marriage is becoming solely legal and emotional.
So if a gay couple is not religious (because every major religion bans gay marriages anyway), then the only stumbling block is in the legal sense. Which is really a non-issue in my opinion; I mean seriously, who gives a damn if the government doesn't recognize your marriage?
Some Mormon and Muslim societies, for example, practice polygamy in states or countries that outlaw them, but that doesn't stop it from actually happening. It's just not recognized legally, and that only goes as far as custody and inheritance issues. Both, in fact, are becoming even less an issue where even non-married (and non-gay) couples are involved in custody and inheritance issues even without being married to each other.
And yet countries and some US states are legalising/battling gay marriages as if it was an actual concern. If you ask me, as long as it's not ILLEGAL, I don't see why something has to be made legal; if it's not illegal, then obviously it's already legal, even if it's not recognized.
I can only think of these two points, sorry, but if there's something I should have mentioned, please do tell.
In any case, this one statement is, well, plain weird:
quote: Our laws are generally moral laws. They stem originally from the bible (specifically the new testament, not the old) as does almost all of western culture. Its society is built on a set of morally strong rules that abhor harming others, theft of property, and promote protection for the weak and basic rights.
Which as we all know is entirely untrue. Although the original basis of laws may be as so, they haven't really been applied. Obvious cases include (past and present) rascist laws, gay laws, women's rights laws, religious laws, adultery laws (or the lack thereof), the banking system, the insurance system, and of course who can forget the Snowden case.
----------
I'll stop here, because I'm pretty sure I've said some ridiculous things in this post that will even make me wonder why I said them, so I'll let someone else in now.
__________________ I am me. I am who I am. I am Roarkiller. No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net Isakaya High RPG Site
quote: Originally posted by fenkashi Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|