Skinheads are a sub culture found in western "civilized cultures" they are not a primary culture of a country, not a culture or group of people based necessarily on the mores of the dominant culture in which they live...they are a sub culture in opposition to the primary culture...members of which are often seen breaking the law. I don't support them, but they have a right to exist as long as they stay within the law of the land. Just like the drug culture is a culture whose members engage in practices of their sub culture which includes both legal and illegal activities Nice try at evasion but you spew shit: sub or primary doesn't matter, they are still a culture and by your own logic they should be judged because they break the law, which contradicts your statement that everyone should not be judged. Sub and primary is a false distinction you just made up anyway. At one time the laws of the land permitted slavery, according to you that is just dandy since it is all relative.
You're still the biggest hypocrite on this site. So they're 'a sub-culture in opposition to the primary culture', are they? Doesn't that contradict everything you were saying in '07 when you were trying to tell us that majority rule doesn't apply and that we should legislate to make sure the needs of minorities are protected, because they have 'no power' and therefore are subject to having their needs ignored, even if they want to govern themselves according to their own laws which might be anathema to us? What the fuck happened to that?? You fucking sicken me. Absolutely 100% correct. The Alcoholic Troll is trying to wriggle his way out of his statement that anything done on a 'cultural' basis is morally defensible. As if we can define 'culture' to such a point of accuracy that we can say 'this is culture and that is not culture'. And anyhow, as I just said above, the Moron Troll has made the opposite assertion in the past, that any group who claims a cultural right to act in a certain way must have that right protected, no matter if the dominant culture condones that act or not. Absolutely sickening hypocrisy.
Oh, so that would make you the <i>one</i> alcoholic in America who <i>doesn't</i> habitually drive drunk? Sell it somewhere else- no buyers here. Back to the topic at hand; <b>This is a 10 year old child:</b> <img src=http://hopesprouts.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/lg2.jpg> <b>This is a horny naked man:</b> <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2270645> And you really need someone to explain to you why one doesn't belong on top of the other? :eek:
No, the question is, why do you think residents of the world are psychic about an unknown group in the Kurdish region? What do you think is the Muslim percentage there? Especially when they do the same thing as Muslims in many other instances??? As for example, you glossed over the half dozen examples I gave above after minimal research? It is unusual for majority Muslim populations in the middle east to tolerate other religions. They certainly don't tolerate Muslims who decide to convert to one of them. I used to have a penpal in Lahore, Pakistan, She was a 22 year old Christian, and desparately wanted to get her family and herself out, as they were terribly discriminated against in the work world and in many parts of society.
Sub culture is not the same as the primary culture. The law does not make a distinction at all about someone's culture, it is supposed to be blind to culture. So if a skinhead breaks the law, they should suffer the consequences. The law changes, like slavery, which means that the law is not absolute but mutable. Cultures are also mutable and not absolute, so it makes little sense to waste time condemning other cultures on the other side of the world with some point of view that is based on moral absoluteness, because in our own culture we have shown that there are always exceptions and circumstance to every rule. It is all relative to the laws, the culture, etc. which have always undergone changes either small or large, either quickly or slowly over time. What really is your problem anyway?
You just can't spit the hook, can you? LOL!!! A libertarian moralist, now if that don't take the cake...
The point is Z to illustrate the self-contradictory and illogic your views, in other words to refute your crap. Take that one -which you just made it up. Black culture is not the main culture of the the United States, so according to you it doesn't matter what they do, only white culture matters and they get to set the norms of behavior. That's dumb for obvious reasons. It is irrelevent how many people are within a culture, it is still a culture. That's stupid, again for obvious reasons, mainly being laws will be made on the basis of a people's culture and are a reflection of it. But if their culture opposes the law since they think the law is wrong, then why pass judgment? -according to your own self-contradictory statements But that wasn't the point, the point is that laws are an aspect of culture, which are judged and evolve. If you can't bring yourself to condemn slavery simply because someone's law permits it, then you are a self-serving hypocrite becuase you rant about all sorts of shit on this forum. It's not moral absoluteness, it's the evolving sense of decency. If you have no sense of decency and judge things like sex with ten year olds, then the culture and law never changes. Cultures and subcultures are judged all the time or they would not evolve. Laws are not the absolute standards of morality as you have presented. They evolve along with cultures, so your measuring stick of 'well it's in the law' is nonsense. People like you, what's yours?
The point is Z to illustrate the self-contradictory and illogic your views, in other words to refute your crap. And you think you are "refuting my crap" do you? LOL Take that one -which you just made it up. Black culture is not the main culture of the the United States, so according to you it doesn't matter what they do, only white culture matters and they get to set the norms of behavior. That's dumb for obvious reasons. It is irrelevent how many people are within a culture, it is still a culture. I said it doesn't matter what a sub culture does? It does if that sub culture breaks the law...and if they don't violate the law then they should be allowed to exist. Most sub cultures are reactionary in nature to the primary culture, and often engage in criminal behavior because they deviate for the norm and mores in some respect...some lawful, some unlawful. The KKK is a subculture who have a history of violence and criminal activity. So a sub culture deviates, but they don't consider themselves deviants at all. The primary culture labels them deviants because they hold the primary culture as absolutely right, and if you are not in agreement with them you are a deviant. This is all relative morality, comparative morality, which generally is used to justify one's own moral position. That's stupid, again for obvious reasons, mainly being laws will be made on the basis of a people's culture and are a reflection of it. The laws reflect the values and morals of the primary culture, but the sub cultures do not agree with the dominant values, so they reject those values. Does this mean they are immoral? No, it means they are different and sometimes their morality drives them to act in illegal ways. The law doesn't differentiate between the primary or sub cultures, it is blind to the culture aspect, but there is no denying the sub cultures often produce more criminal behavior that is reflective of the sub culture, which is standing in opposition to the primary culture. You seem to be very confused about the concept of morality which is changing all the time over the course of time, and laws which often change only after the moral compass moves on the primary culture. But if their culture opposes the law since they think the law is wrong, then why pass judgment? -according to your own self-contradictory statements If a culture opposes the law, and they act in an unlawful manner, they will suffer the consequences of the law. The law is the bottom line in every situation, and the decision to hold every person to the strict aspects of the law. We have a sub culture in America, the wealthy and famous, who routinely escape the punishment by the law because of their status as compared to a poor black man who does the same things... If RM has a better lawyer because he can afford it he might not go to jail where a poor black man doing the same thing with a crappy public defender goes to jail. The law is the same in both cases, but the application of the law varies in accordance with the financial ability to hire the best council, etc. But that wasn't the point, the point is that laws are an aspect of culture, which are judged and evolve. If you can't bring yourself to condemn slavery simply because someone's law permits it, then you are a self-serving hypocrite becuase you rant about all sorts of shit on this forum. Laws are an aspect of the dominant culture, not the sub cultures. The sub cultures often reject the primary culture and are punished accordingly. It's not moral absoluteness, it's the evolving sense of decency. If you have no sense of decency and judge things like sex with ten year olds, then the culture and law never changes. Cultures and subcultures are judged all the time or they would not evolve. So you are saying "we" are more evolved than them, and some other country who has abolished the death penalty looks at the US and claims they are morally superior... Laws are not the absolute standards of morality as you have presented. They evolve along with cultures, so your measuring stick of 'well it's in the law' is nonsense. I have not said laws are the absolute standards of morality as the laws are mutable. That which is mutable and changes is of course not absolute, it is relative. So the moral absoluteists around here are without any absolute foundation. Just moralists from a relative perspective. Americans say killing is wrong, but collateral damage is right. It is silly, but of course Americans rationalize killing in the name of righteous all the time, just like the Muslims do...
I GUESS REPUBLICANS AND ARABS/TERRORISTS HAVE MORE IN COMMON THEN I THOUGHT!!! http://www.local6.com/problemsolvers/13664897/detail.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901574.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701235.html?hpid=topnews http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223201_west06.html
zzz you are hanging yourself by your own petard. In your demented ideal world does the law of the majority matter? If you answer is yes - how so.