Zimbabwe

[Onusha]

Try to avoid the tabloid sensationalism in your arguments please, but to answer your question, i'll have to repeat myself i suppose.

Because pedophilia is sensationalist.

MORALS. ARE. SUBJECTIVE. okay, thats point one, it's a fact, indisputable.

You do realize the irony in that statement don't you?

Point two is this: SOCIAL. MORALS. CHANGE. Even within different countries, what is considered paedophilia changes. In amerca sex with a 14 year old is paedophilia, in spain it's legal.

It doesn't make it right.

Some cultures have and had marriages between 12 year olds and grown adults. Do i presume that iam *SO MUCH BETTER* than them to tell them my way is best? No, i don't. I'm not that arrogant.

Some cultures circumcise women, we should tolerate their differences.

Just because you think that YOUR morals are the perfect collection of morals does NOT make it true, it just makes you arrogant enough to believe you are correct and the billions of people throughout history who have disagreed with you are wrong.

I never said that I believe my morals are right, what I said was that there are objective moral truths.

I notice you completely side stepped that point. If educated people are so much more correct than everyone else, why is it that every single educated person is wrong every single day about
something?

Did you even read what I said? I said a person educated in a certain field has more right to claim superiority in truth of a matter in said field over someone not educated in said field.

Advances aren't made by people who believe whatever the person who taught them told them. Advances are made by people who think "Maybe this is wrong, lets find out"

Haha, the Soviet Union was built on the assumption that Marxism was wrong but "they should give it a try anyway".

Assuming you are right because you are "educated" Is the sign of a fool, because if it was true, we wouldn't be disproving things and advancing in science etc every single day now, would we?

What the shit? By your logic we make advances in socio-economics by experimenting with flimsy economic theories.

Once upon a time they WERE morally correct. See my first answer for more.

No they weren't. Once upon a time savage shits didn't have morals.

Yes, and if you look at ANY field of science, especially the newer fields, you'll find HUNDREDS of accepted truths which, it turns out, were false

New fields of science are called "pseudo-science", and they're called such for a reason.

Hey, we found a cure for polio, but wait it might not be real because nothing is true.

If you need examples, just ask.

Yes, please.

Assuming you can count the korean war as a "victory" for interference (which is VERY debateable)

No, I never said it was a victory. However the US and her allies saved half of Korea from Juche slavery. If nobody "interfered" the whole of Korea would be under such.

You're an educated person

No... thanks for the assumption, but I'm really not. I flunked many of my classes and skipped classes countless times.

do you want me to list 10 times in the 20th centure it hasn't helped, or do you already know them and are choosing to ignore them?

Yeah, please.

You think you people can decide whats best for other people.

Bloody hell dude, seriously read what I'm writing. I don't think "just anyone" should decide what's best for everyone else.

To use the examples you've been using, that means that the church were right in all those crusades and executions over the years since they were the "educated" ones on this stuff, or they were right to burn "witches"...

*bashes head on keyboard* Just... no.

Racism - has been fine (see... America)
Killing - has been fine (see... Any war)
Cannabalism - has been fine (see... South American tribes)
Genocide - has been fine (see... The bible)
Rape - has been fine (see... The victors of almost any ancient war)

God bloody oath man, they weren't right just because the culture at the time said so, thus the whole point of my argument.

So exactly what "moral evils" haven't been fine at one time in one place or another? Please give examples of your blanket statement Thanks.

To give one example, rape has always been seen as morally evil in every society.

Lets start with someone who was intelligent in every field, who was ahead of his time in everything that he studied then shall we? Aristotle.

Aristotle had no knowledge of medicine, astrology, and little knowledge of economics in his time.

Your morals don't match his, and you are saying your morals are correct.

I never said my morals were correct. Don't make stuff up you bad bad man.

Since Aristotle actively STUDIED morals etc, by your reckoning that makes YOU wrong. So by your reasoning, since Aristotle knows more about it than you, you are wrong, and he is right, oui?

OH NO HE DI-DN'T

Honestly, all i have seen from you, is you saying "My way is correct, and thats because i'm educated"

I laughed for like 5 minutes at this. I have never said I was intelligent or educated, nor have I ever said that "my way is correct". Dude, I love you.

Which means you are readily saying that someone who has more education than you in that field, is more correct in you. Since you don't have a whole lot of education in Human Morals and Moral Changes Throughout History, why are you still assuming that you are correct?

That's like saying "because you haven't studied nutrition you don't know how to eat properly".

Some thing it's fine to look at pictures etc of naked young boys/girls. Some think sex with 14 or even 12 year olds is okay. What makes you SO much better than those cultures, that YOUR definition of "moral evil" is superior to theirs?

Because I'm superior to them, baby.

By the definition of your country, they are all paedophiles, no?

If a grown man/woman has sex with a fourteen year old, yes that is pedophilia.

For an objective moral evil, it sure is very SUBJECTIVE isn't it?

No, it really isn't.

You believe you know best and you should get to decide the future of other people because you are "educated"

Oh Decado, you and your "making shit up". You're such a silly doofus.

lets leave it at that, shall we?

*Dun dundada da dadada*

I win 200 Gil and a Phoenix Down.
​

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

To give one example, rape has always been seen as morally evil in every society.

I could be wrong, but in my ethics class, I think I remember it being mentioned rape was widely accepted by the romans. I of course as mentioned could be wrong.

- Kuja

 

[Soul Saver]

I'm going to have to agree with one point. That the perception of morality is subjective, based on the knowledge, norms, outlook, etc, of a particular culture. However, what influences moral views? Commonly held views, perceptions, widespread knowledge in society... the perception of slavery and racism changed as more and more people realised that blacks, too, were human beings just as much as anyone else, and that they did not like being treated as sub-human slaves.
From what we know, slavery is an abomination.


We know that most African cultures and nations are in the dark, and backwards, relatively, in terms of technology and knowledge. We can safely assume that constant violence, poverty, and backwards culture stands in the way of progress, and that a large majority of Africans are poorly educated, or not educated at all. Without knowledge, how will there be progress? No doubt, if most Africans had good education and did not have to live in fear or poverty , they would reject the status quo of petty warlords, tribal violence, and so on. Those involved in such certainly do not like it, but have not seen a world beyond it, and are at the mercy of warlords and tribes. As knowledge, prosperity, and technology increases, morality changes, and so does the world.

I am not going to say that morals always correlate with the said factors, as there are many things which are still in dispute... however, there are certain things which are largely considered despicable, unfair, immoral, etc, by a majority consensus, at this point. This includes vote rigging, rape, murder, torture, and so on. Zimbabweans at the mercy of ZANU-PF thugs certainly do not like what is happening. Human security is being violated.

When it comes to the situation in Zimbabwe, where is the justification in that?

I would say that acting based on our own morality, and the assumption that we know alot more, and are much more advanced, is not arrogant, as the status quo, and all evidence, points to us being much more developed. This isn't about us being more advanced than Zimbabwe, though. It is acting against what we consider despicable violations of the rights of the Zimbabwean people, and that which the Zimbabweans on the recieving end don't like either. The ZANU-PF is in control of Zimbabwe illegally, and commits atrocities daily.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Hi Decado,

I've read some of your posts regarding ethics, and I just want to know if we're on the same page.

I'm a firm believer that everyone should come to their own decisions on morals and ethics. My decisions about this is based on evidence, not on any ethics i may follow.

Before I ask you what I'm about to, Your correct, no moral evil, has been declared evil by everyone.

Now it is my understanding your basically saying "Things are only as evil as people see". With that said some things like slavery were widely accepted in biblical times for example, but is considered immoral today.

Now let me ask you something, If a psychologist pointed out that rape has many negative mental effects on a man/woman, and as such claims that its wrong, has no right claiming its wrong? Are you claiming a rapist is right, or has the right to claim he's justified in what he does?

I'm kind of confused, because I can't comprehend if your saying nothing is evil, we humans make things, or declare things evil, or if your saying people can/should be able to decide on what they consider to be right(or both) because morals change overtime. Does this mean in a sense, that things morally evil or not like killing, or saving somebodies life are ok as long as we think they are?

I'm not here to argue with you, I just want your response, I myself will probably not respond. I respect your opinion regardless of what it is, and won't try to make you look like some kind of anarchist for lack of a better term. Note I'm not trying to portray you as an anarchist, or saying your one.

This is a perfectly innocent post, and I hope you have the decency to give me a good & fair response. Note I'm not saying your low-class, or are incapable of giving decent responses =)

As far as Zimbabwe is concerned, Piedmon I agree with you, something needs to be done.

- Kuja

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Kuja, what i am saying is that we don't have the right to persecute people based on what we think is right or wrong.

if someone chooses to live in a country or society where something occurs, or where something is legal, thats their choice. Other countries shouldn't decide "nope, we don't like that you guys allow this/are doing this, so we're going to take military action"

The reason for this is what i've stated above many times. Morals are subjective. None of us have the right to say our beliefs or morals are better than someone elses. Just because something is abhorrent to us, does not mean we have to force everyone to live by our standards.

If rape is legal in that country, fine. Just don't go there. If you live there and you don't like that rape is legal, leave, overthrow the government, whatever. But if rape is legal in a country, and you live in another country and think "hmm, i don't like that, i shall invade them" Thats wrong, in my opinion.

What if another country was to decide "Wow, those guys actually allow the death penalty? Thats against human security, we need to invade them!"

Laws differ vastly from country to country. Allowing other countries to invade places which don't follow their laws, no matter what those laws may be, is a bad idea IMO.

Ok, sorry if I threw you off-topic, I just wasn't entirely sure what you were getting at, but now I know what you mean, and I somewhat agree.

I think people can think whatever they want, and if rape is legal in a country, I think that country is wrong, but I'm not going to gather an army just to enforce my belief on them.

I think in one U.S state, I forget which one, but you can legally hit your wife once a month or year(i forget also), thought that would be interesting to share ^^.

Thank you, And btw whats your avatar and sig pic? I've been meaning to ask for a while now

- Kuja

 

[Onusha]

Examples of sciences being proven wrong: The world is flat, Something cannot be in two places at one time, The world is 10,000 years old, Going above 70mph would kill a man...

Not science. It was primitive belief which came from the Bible.

Iraq, Iran, Afgahnistan, Almost any south american country...

All those countries should be annexed into the US and colonized.

No it hasn't. ghengis Khans mongols for instance. There have been plenty of cultures in which women were property and were raped often. Your statement is completely factually incorrect.

I thought you've studied history? Ghengis Khan's empire had some of the first human rights laws in history.

In YOUR opinion, and opinion which MILLIONS of people do not share, maybe even billions. Thus proving that MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE. I hope this is clear enough for you: Just because YOU think it is wrong, doesn't mean IT IS WRONG. Making sense now?

Rape is wrong, but that's just my opinion. I should let the others decide if it's right or wrong because nothing is true, and I'm a nihilist.

Yes, he did. http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/25280.html

Again, your statement is completely factually incorrect.

Lol, I wasn't saying that about Aristotle I was saying that about your smarmy comment.

Exactly. Thats what you're doing. You're saying because these people aren't "educated" That their morals don't count, and that yours are correct. (See you saying that spanish people are paedophiles for an example)

I'm saying that people who aren't educated in certain fields have no right to claim truth over someone who is. However, regarding morality, there are some things which are just intrinsic to all men. Rape is wrong, Altruism is good, etc...

(See you saying that spanish people are paedophiles for an example)

You're making shit up AGAIN. I never said that Spanish people are pedophiles, I said that any grown man/woman who has sex with a 14 year old is a pedophile. I'm not a Serb, I don't generalize nationalities... except maybe the French.

Kuja, what i am saying is that we don't have the right to persecute people based on what we think is right or wrong.

By this logic punishing thieves, murderers and rapists is a subjective wrong and we have no subjective right to do so.

if someone chooses to live in a country or society where something occurs, or where something is legal, thats their choice.

People don't choose where they are born and it is incredibly hard for any Zimbabwean to leave Zimbabwe. North Korea is also a good example, you try to leave, you get shot, you try to resist, you get a bullet in the head.

Other countries shouldn't decide "nope, we don't like that you guys allow this/are doing this, so we're going to take military action"

Yeah, it would have been wrong if the USSR, Great Britain or the US decided that even before they invaded Poland, the National-Socialist murder of so many people in Germany was wrong and decided to intervene to save them.

If rape is legal in that country, fine. Just don't go there. If you live there and you don't like that rape is legal, leave, overthrow the government, whatever. But if rape is legal in a country, and you live in another country and think "hmm, i don't like that, i shall invade them" Thats wrong, in my opinion.

Even regarding the impossibility of this scenario, lets say your neighbour's son was being beaten and sexually abused by his father, a police intervention by your standard is wrong and he (the boy) should either run away or kill his father.

What if another country was to decide "Wow, those guys actually allow the death penalty? Thats against human security, we need to invade them!"

That wouldn't happen... people don't invade other countries because they see one social policy as wrong. You're sure using a lot of unlikely hypothetical scenarios here aren't you Billy?

Laws differ vastly from country to country. Allowing other countries to invade places which don't follow their laws, no matter what those laws may be, is a bad idea IMO.

If their laws are morally superior they have a duty to annex another country.

 

[Serah]

Guys, let's cut the sarcasm and stop getting so heated in here, alright? I really don't want to have to close out this thread. Any further questions, feel free to PM me.

 

[Onusha]

Guys, let's cut the sarcasm and stop getting so heated in here, alright? I really don't want to have to close out this thread. Any further questions, feel free to PM me.

Awww, sarcasm is the only thing I'm good at though, along with making cup cakes and being a self-righteous wanker.

 

[Serah]

The cupcakes part sounds good, the self-righteous wanker NOT so good. I'm just asking you guys to cool down, is all. Anyway, I'll let you get back to your debate, just try and keep things cool or wait until you're calmed down before posting again.

 

[Contra Fates]

Moderation Note:
This thread has seemingly strayed from the topic, and has been facilitating drama and offensive slurs. Quite frankly, a lot of posts within this thread have been worthy of infractions.

From this point on, I would like to see a drastic change in tone. No more sarcasm, no more rude remarks. Focus on the statements and debate your stand on the subject, don't insult others in the process.

This thread will be closed and an infraction will be issued for the next offensive post, because this has gone quite far enough.

With that said, please continue on...just tone it down, please.

 

[Donald Trump]

Kuja, what i am saying is that we don't have the right to persecute people based on what we think is right or wrong.

It's not persecuting, it is saving people from persecution. I'm not an expert on Zimbabwean culture, and don't claim to be. However, genocide, murder and torture are not part of their morals.
Mugabe and his supporters who carry out these things are in the minority. So if the majority of people in that country are against the murder etc, and the western world also condemns the actions, then something should be done.

 

[Onusha]

Mugabe and his supporters who carry out these things are in the minority. So if the majority of people in that country are against the murder etc, and the western world also condemns the actions, then something should be done.

So no action should be taken from outside if the majority decides that a certain minority are the reason for everything bad in the country and thus decides to jail and/or torture them/have them shot/thrown into mass graves/etc... simply because it's majority opinion?

i.e. Rwanda, Serbia, Srpska, and Nazi Germany (before invasion of Poland)

 

[Donald Trump]

So no action should be taken from outside if the majority decides that a certain minority are the reason for everything bad in the country and thus decides to jail and/or torture them/have them shot/thrown into mass graves/etc... simply because it's majority opinion?

i.e. Rwanda, Serbia, Srpska, and Nazi Germany (before invasion of Poland)

Aren't we good at taking stuff out of context?
I never advocated that, perhaps there is something else you'd like to accuse me of?
I was simply pointing out that Decado's arguement said that we could not interfere just because our morals are different. I was pointing out that they were similar and if we are going to judge on morals then we should judge on the morals of the majority, not the minority.

 

[Onusha]

Aren't we good at taking stuff out of context?
I never advocated that, perhaps there is something else you'd like to accuse me of?
I was simply pointing out that Decado's arguement said that we could not interfere just because our morals are different. I was pointing out that they were similar and if we are going to judge on morals then we should judge on the morals of the majority, not the minority.

No no no! Sorry, I just wasn't sure what you meant, as if you were advocating an absolute or not. Thus the question mark at the end.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Aren't we good at taking stuff out of context?
I never advocated that, perhaps there is something else you'd like to accuse me of?
I was simply pointing out that Decado's arguement said that we could not interfere just because our morals are different. I was pointing out that they were similar and if we are going to judge on morals then we should judge on the morals of the majority, not the minority.

Hey Placebo,

I just want to expand here on what you said, because I agree with you.

Now what Decado said wasn't 100% wrong, but it definately isn't 100% correct either. I honestly believe Decados comment about not judging others applies to some things like Religion. For example you shouldn't force people to follow a certain Religion, who are we to tell otheres what they should think, see that makes sense! But when you apply it to a moral evil all of a sudden we have problems. I don't think stealing for example is ok, if I caught somebody stealing from me I'd catch him/her and call the cops, even stealing to survive is wrong because your selfishly stealing from somebody else for your own survival, although you could argue "what if a poor guy steals from a rich guy".

Now Decado if your reading this, I'm merely replying to your statement, I am fully aware you made no mention of stealing being ok, but instead said if it was legal in a certain place that we have no right intervening to enforce our morals on them, and thats fine, I agree.

Now, I do believe we should help those unfortunate people in Zimbabwe. The problem is I dont know specifically what we should do. If we assassinate Mugabe, will his followers take over or cower? Something to consider =). And I'm with Placebo were not persecuting were saving from persecution.

- Kuja

 

[Onusha]

Now, I do believe we should help those unfortunate people in Zimbabwe. The problem is I dont know specifically what we should do. If we assassinate Mugabe, will his followers take over or cower? Something to consider =). And I'm with Placebo were not persecuting were saving from persecution.

Well, when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia it was the one of the most prosperous and successful countries in Africa, if not the most, it was even considered the "Breadbasket of Africa". But what went wrong?

Well, up until 1965 Rhodesia was a British colony, but was declared independent by Prime Minister Ian Smith and although unrecognized by the rest of the world continued to be prosperous and successful up until the late 70s when it was considered futile to continue fighting against the black nationalist forces (which outnumbered whites 22:1) and in 1979 Mugabe and his cronies offered peace to the Rhodesian whites, claiming that in the new "Zimbabwe" whites could remain to live peacefully. However, not long after Mugabe became President of the new republic, armed goons were sent to beat white farmers and throw them from their farms, handing them over to blacks. Thousands of other whites were thrown from their homes as well and had to understandably leave their country out of fear.

Not long after, Zimbabwe started to suffer economic inflation, unemployment, and rising crime, which has to this day, never stopped rising. For example, now an average loaf of bread costs around 1,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars.

And even today, Ian Smith is considered a hero by many people, even the leader of the Zimbabwean opposition party (who recently pulled out from the election out of fear for his and his families life) who is a black man said-

"If Smith was a black man, I would say that he was the best Prime Minister that Zimbabwe ever had." - Morgan Tsvangirai, Leader of the Movement for Democratic Change

So go figure, I guess. The way I see it is this- Stuff them, stop sending aid to Africa and just leave them to their own devices to commit more primitive tribal genocides, let them continue to shag like rabbits, even though they can't care for their offspring and it spreads AIDS like theres no tomorrow, just let them do whatever they want. They wanted black majority rule, fine they have it now. We shouldn't help them, they brought this on themselves.

 

[Donald Trump]

Now what Decado said wasn't 100% wrong, but it definately isn't 100% correct either. I honestly believe Decados comment about not judging others applies to some things like Religion. For example you shouldn't force people to follow a certain Religion, who are we to tell otheres what they should think, see that makes sense! But when you apply it to a moral evil all of a sudden we have problems. I don't think stealing for example is ok, if I caught somebody stealing from me I'd catch him/her and call the cops, even stealing to survive is wrong because your selfishly stealing from somebody else for your own survival, although you could argue "what if a poor guy steals from a rich guy".

I'll continue on with your example, Mugabe is the religion forcing other people to follow his religion, but instead of just forcing people to convert he is mudering and torturing people who could oppose him. We are telling Mugabe what they can and can't do. We are telling him he can't murder people and expect to get away with it. We aren't forcing our morals on him, but freeing people who can't help themselves.
Say there is a man with broken legs, outside of a hospital, he can't get up the steps. We would help him right? Zimbabweans are the people with broken legs we can help them get better.

Now, I do believe we should help those unfortunate people in Zimbabwe. The problem is I dont know specifically what we should do. If we assassinate Mugabe, will his followers take over or cower? Something to consider

Like Katsky said, Zimbabwe was rich and prosperous once. S/he atributes the decline in Zimbabwe to Zimbabweans. I'd be more inclined to atribute it to Mugabe. His civil war against ZAPU and fighting in the Congo has ruined Zimbabwe's economy.
I'd make Tsvangirai the nominal leader. I'd make it a mandate to be looked after by the UN, that way Zimbabwe would have the best chance to 'get better'.
Once the economy in Zimbabwe is satisfactory and Mugabe is gone, democratic elections can be held and it can would no longer be a mandate.


EDIT:

No no no! Sorry, I just wasn't sure what you meant, as if you were advocating an absolute or not. Thus the question mark at the end

Sorry I read it as an accusation, rather than a question

 

[Onusha]

Zimbabwe to Zimbabweans. I'd be more inclined to atribute it to Mugabe. His civil war against ZAPU and fighting in the Congo has ruined Zimbabwe's economy.

Hmm, I just find it hard to believe that a nation once so prosperous has been driven into hell so badly, even failed socialist leaders who nationalized almost everything (Allende comes to mind) and shagged their countries in the anus never drove them to be like this, you'd have to be a complete retard to fuck up the economy of a country with such vast natural resources and agricultural capabilities.

And nevertheless, this has happened to every other former European African colony, even South American and East Asian former colonies are more successful than anything in Africa.

 

[Donald Trump]

Hmm, I just find it hard to believe that a nation once so prosperous has been driven into hell so badly, even failed socialist leaders who nationalized almost everything (Allende comes to mind) and shagged their countries in the anus never drove them to be like this, you'd have to be a complete retard to fuck up the economy of a country with such vast natural resources and agricultural capabilities.

And nevertheless, this has happened to every other former European African colony, even South American and East Asian former colonies are more successful than anything in Africa.

Allende just needed more money, it wasn't his fault that the American corporations took all the money from the copper mines. It was always going to be slow progress, Allende wasn't all to clever either, appointing Pinochet as the Head of the army

It's probably because when we(white people) were in those African countries we treated the blacks like shit. Which meant when they got power they wouldn't trust us enough to let us help them.
Democracy is a very new in African countries, you'd expect that there would be problems.
It is kind of a patronising approach to take, but they need us to help them out. To educate them properly, universities etc.
Just look at South Africa, the real man in power, Zuma is a rapist and his political song during the nominations was "pass me my machine gun".

 

[Onusha]

Allende just needed more money, it wasn't his fault that the American corporations took all the money from the copper mines. It was always going to be slow progress, Allende wasn't all to clever either, appointing Pinochet as the Head of the army

Haha, yes. That Pinochet, oh him, with his rampant murder of political opponents.

It's probably because when we(white people) were in those African countries we treated the blacks like shit.

European powers treated all their colonial subjects like shit, not just Africans.

Which meant when they got power they wouldn't trust us enough to let us help them.

What do you mean by "help" though? We send barrage them with food and supply aid constantly. Do you mean UN peacekeeping forces and such?

Democracy is a very new in African countries, you'd expect that there would be problems.

Democracy has never worked and it is inevitable that it leads to genocides, dictatorships, etc...

It is kind of a patronising approach to take, but they need us to help them out. To educate them properly, universities etc.

I agree, but it is just far too much work to do. Africa will never ever be at the standard of the west, however by some impossible circumstance the African people did come to such living standards, they'd be the only ones in the world who could live like that, just like if China or India siphoned the worlds economy and into their countries (which they are doing now), you could say goodbye to your Swedish furniture and café lattes.

The only real hope is population control, introduced by the United Nations on a world scale, different quotas for different areas, first world nations already suffer from declining birth rates so it is really 3rd world nations that need to be forced to stop producing countless offspring.

Just look at South Africa, the real man in power, Zuma is a rapist and his political song during the nominations was "pass me my machine gun".

Yeah, South Africa really went downhill after Mandela sadly.