So glad we defeated the Taliban!

The appeal to relativism is so weak. So we're just going to accept hundreds of thousands of Darfurians dead or displaced because it's acceptable in their culture, and we shouldn't intervene in other cultures because that's bad (unless, of course, we're dolling out hundreds of millions of dollars in aid with no strings attached). Puh-leeze. Human rights are universal and don't apply to just one part of the planet. Human dignity transcends borders, and Westerners should be enforcing those values wherever we can, particularly in countries where we are nation building and where we expect those countries to live up to international human rights standards.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by adamgian

This entire argument is based on the false assumption that Islam doesn't contain certain human rights embedded within it. The fact of the matter is stable Muslim countries have among the lowest crime rates in the world, lowest murder rates, and highest levels of philanthropy among other countries.

Almost all if not all (I'd need to read the document, im going from memory) the mentions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are embodied by Islam, its merely an issue of interpretation. The problem with interpretation is that radicals tend to scream louder, and theirs has taken over. Wait a little though, it's slowly changing as the ME comes to terms with its own terrorist threat.

Where did I even mention that Islam contradicts human rights norms? The fact of the matter is that Western European countries have a better record of enforcing human rights at home and abroad than any other part of the world, and most people seem to think we have an obligation to ensure that those human rights are respected outside of our borders wherever possible.

And low crime rates have absoloutely fuck all to do with respecting human rights.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

What are these human rights that you are talking about? Please show me where their laws differ with Internation Human Rights Standards. I'd love to better understand the conflict between these two.

Do you not know what human rights are?

Executing someone on the basis of his religious affiliation doesn't strike me as respect for one's human rights.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Marked for emphasis. Again, what you're saying is entirely relative, and the fact of the matter is, we turned Afghanistan into a Democracy, and it is no longer our decision as to what their laws are. If American lives were lost to bring a system you disagree with, great, just make sure the US doesn't start anymore invasions of soverign countries if the results will be less than satisfactory

This is utter bullshit. So you're saying that there are no objective moral standards of judging the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide or Darfurian genocides as wrong? Mass destruction of human life is OK depending on your relative moral stance? Get the fuck out of here with that.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Low crime is representative of the values a nation holds dear, and if it is one of less execution and robery, that will translate into a system of laws and a judiciary that supports some of the rights the West espouses.

I don't even know if your statistics are correct or not, and frankly, it has no bearing on your point whatsoever. Low crime is indicative of a system where the Gen. Pop is obedient, and the causes of that obedience can be numerous. You're oversimplifying an argument that requires a lot more proof and a lot less rhetoric to substantiate.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

No, it just means Western governments are better at enforcing what they believe are proper human values and rights. The issue is relative depending on which rights you discuss.

It's not. Human rights are universal and regimes can't just pick and choose the ones that they like and omit the rest (from a moral p.o.v.).

Originally Posted by Adamgian

but not one to interfere when the issue is the result of a different interpretation of the values of a nation. In particular, I reference the difference between genocide and execution for adultery, or in this case, apostacy.

You can't just reference something and not explain its connection to whatever you're saying. And how the fuck do you misinterpret one's right to exercise religious freedom to justify killing someone on the basis of his religious affiliation? It's a direct contradiction of a fundamental human right that transcends all borders and encompasses all human beings regardless of ethnicity or nationality.

I could just justify slavery by saying that this is a culturally norm and therefore acceptable. I could say that our culture kills everyone with a mark on their left cheek and that statement in itself would justify those killings. Your standard fails because there is an objective moral standard to judge these things, and no bullshit relativism will ever discount that.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The fact of the matter is, a nation has the right to chose its own laws, and the US has no right to tell them whether or not they are justified. If a majority of Afghanistan believes that he should be executed and the system of laws in Afghanistan leans towards that, then I'm afraid hes a victim of that. Curse and damn their laws all you want, I won't be hesitating, but at the same time, its simply not our decision.

You frustrate me to no end because you have such a narrow frame of mind. The U.S. or any other country has every right to criticize the human rights practices of other countries if they are, in fact, wrong. And the fact that a law exists in a country (that has been under tyrannical rule for the last decade) that states that he should die because he subscribes to a religion outside of Islam doesn't make it right, and since Western powers are lifting this country out of its post-war ruins, we have all the leverage to enforce those human rights in Afghanistan and therefore we ultimately do have the right to make that decision.

Relativism fails by its own justification. The view that everything is relative is a relative p.o.v. and therefore cannot be regarded as truth.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.