Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (60894)	10/3/2002 12:59:35 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

What a crock. I did not say all of them were tinhorn dictators, just most, which is simply true. It is clear that there is no world society, because there is no world culture, but many different cultures that are in sharp disagreement on a number of key points. In the 19th century, there were Southern and Northern subcultures, but they shared a national culture, one which had much the same list of heroes, revered documents, and hallowed institutions. Among the dominant notions of their society, then, was that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and yet they were denying these rights to a racial group through the institution of chattel slavery. And it is no good to say that they didn't know blacks were men, or thought them incapable of freedom. By that time, it was taken for granted that the slaves should be baptized (you don't baptize apes), and manumission was a common practice. It is revolting when someone like Jefferson Davis makes a speech about how the North is trying to turn Southerners into slaves. It is not at all the same. There is no world culture, there are a diversity of cultures, and ours is American. For the sake of humanity, it is best that the world modernize as rapidly as possible, but I understand that that can create disruptions, and therefore I think that the countries themselves should ordinarily determine the pace. I also am not keen on heavy handed interference. However, there are singular instances when I think we can take a stand, at least morally, such as genital mutilation and the persistence of slavery. We take sides constantly, as when we condemned apartheid. So what?