Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ketara wrote:To carry it on, every time someone mentions ways of measuring cultural progress, I don't tell them that everyone else's viewpoints on the matter are all just as good as theirs, because its all ultimately subjective. Because that also gets no-one anywhere.

I don't see any problem of someone trying to measure cultural progress. I see a problem of someone trying to use that measurement of cultural progress as an excuse to exercise dominion and control over others.

I understand what you're saying.

biccat wrote:

Ketara wrote:To carry it on, every time someone mentions ways of measuring cultural progress, I don't tell them that everyone else's viewpoints on the matter are all just as good as theirs, because its all ultimately subjective. Because that also gets no-one anywhere.

I don't see any problem of someone trying to measure cultural progress. I see a problem of someone trying to use that measurement of cultural progress as an excuse to exercise dominion and control over others.

I understand what you're saying.

Fair play then. I've no quarrel with that.

It was just the philosophical argument technique I was arguing against.

I think it's worth noting that my analysis has been purposefully amoral. I refer to "ought" in the sense of policy rather than morality. At the same time, I'm not convinced by a moral critique of imperialism premised on the notion of self-determination. Cultural "superiority" has been somewhat tangential. I am just as much for the exercise of imperial dominion over our cultural betters as our inferiors.

I don't have any science behind this opinion, but I would consider a culture in which it is okay to throw acid into a young girl's face for having the audacity to go to school to be an inferior culture.

As you might imagine, I completely agree. Acid-hurling misogynists are obviously less sympathetic than the hypothetically pleasant and hardworking "salt of the earth" subsistence farmers that biccat mentions. I don't think we should confuse cultural superiority with moral superiority, which is I think at least part of biccat's objections.

sebster wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:The US never took part in an invasion. Although several tactics were reckless and foolish, we cannot rule out that they were actually trying to help the civilians in Iraq.

Trying to help people doesn't rule out something being an invasion. If you go and land troops in someone's country when they weren't at war with you, it's an invasion.

No, it isn't invasion is when you aim to take over land for yourself. Fighting a war abroad is not necessarily an invasion. By what you've quoted, armies that have traveled through countries to get to another are apparently invaders.

sebster wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:For your post, you seem to be trying to brainwash us. I think this post is simply you trying to force your ideas upon someone else. Forcing ideas upon people is edging towards fascism, and you are only going to get through to like minded people. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to make us see through your eyes, you're only going to receive hate posts and PMs in return.

Arguing a political point, no matter how constantly, just cannot be considered forcing your ideas on someone. Because the rest of us have our own brains, and therefore have the ability to consider those arguments, and accept or reject them as we please.

You might call it boring, but it isn't facism.

It is close when you consider that these articles are incredibly biased and whenever you raise a point against what they say someone will write a rant about how wrong you are. I'm sorry if I came across wrong but many people are hurling insults at each other if they don't believe what they believe. In this world people have to get along, and differences should be over looked. I just want people to understand that there are other people on the thread, and they are entitled to their own opinions and views. Insulting them is actually bullying, and that is how some people have come across.

I'm sorry that I may have incorrectly worded my post, and I'm sorry if you disagree with what I have said, but I find it hard to put into words. It isn't boring, I just wanted to see some evidence of the facts.

Manchu wrote:I think it's worth noting that my analysis has been purposefully amoral. I refer to "ought" in the sense of policy rather than morality. At the same time, I'm not convinced by a moral critique of imperialism premised on the notion of self-determination. Cultural "superiority" has been somewhat tangential. I am just as much for the exercise of imperial dominion over our cultural betters as our inferiors.

In essence, then, you're defining quality (superiority v. inferiority) as an inherently subjective measure roughly equivalent to preference?

Pretty much. I mean, biccat is correct -- the metric is about what the cultural elite in question prefers.

EDIT: At least at the "fine" scale.

I'm guessing then, that you're also arguing to the effect that applying that metric is not necessarily a bad thing (I would make the same argument).

Exactly so, assuming you mean immoral by bad.

Monster Rain wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Just as false as assuming anyone who disagreed with you is OWS?

Or assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll?.

Someone made the statement/implied that the US does not oppress its own people. I stated that this is debatable.

If someone refuted my claim via discussion or opinion then no it would not be trolling, it would simply be a differing opinion.

However the response to my statement was instead a snide reference to OWS and a quip about getting water cannons.

This was in no way a productive response intended to refute my opinion or continue the discussion it was in fact a troll and a further attempt to carry on the OWS-bashing that is a popular past time here in Dakka OT.

CT GAMER wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Just as false as assuming anyone who disagreed with you is OWS?

Or assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll?.

Someone made the statement/implied that the US does not oppress its own people. I stated that this is debatable.

It's debatable because all human governments, by neccesity, oppress their citizens to some degree.