Straight Talking

July 27th, 2005 - 00:00 | 16 comments

He gets it. He really gets it. When half the media and most of the intellectual left are doing their best to sympathise with suicide bombers, the Prime Minister is taking a stand I consider to be entirely correct. Like he says, democracy isn’t ‘Western’, it’s human. Bend over backwards to understand other viewpoints, sure, but it’s perfectly ok to decide that they’re entirely wrong. That the people you disagree with are of a different culture is of no consequence. Logic and morality have no boundaries. Sorry to be preachy, but the alternative viewpoint is way too close to cultural relativism for me to keep my mouth shut. It’s a condition

-----

16 Responses to “Straight Talking”

1 Simon Jul 27th, 2005 at 1:38 am

I liked the bit where he used the word ‘ideology’ but it sounded like he said ‘idiology’.

I shouldn’t read the comments though, gah. The only policy I currently have reservations about are the anti-terror laws which seem to compromise the principles of our legal system in response to fear. Or how terrorism has altered the way we do things. Everything else though. Arguments which might as well say “Saddam was alright. So he butchered his people but at least he didn’t attack ours, and surely thats the important thing?” Nice guys, nice.
2 Andrew Jul 27th, 2005 at 9:58 am

I can only read comments on political blogs when I’m feeling particularly thick-skinned. They always annoy me
3 SpruceGoose Jul 27th, 2005 at 1:58 pm

Yes but to what extent does individualism factor? If we adopt the stance that it’s fine to disregard generalisations such as cultural relativism we may actually be falling victim to just such a thing. Not only that, we would have full scale anarchy inside a week and instances of moral obligation or irrational decision making according to the almighty Dawkins (halo) would simply have to be ignored.
4 Simon Jul 27th, 2005 at 4:04 pm

I’m confused
5 Andrew Jul 27th, 2005 at 4:18 pm

Snap. You think it would help if we looked at some pictures of bunnies?
6 SpruceGoose Jul 27th, 2005 at 7:39 pm

Confused about what? Presumably you want me to clarify perfectly readable engglish but you could at least state that. Oh and look here for the true definition of wandwaver: http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/wandwaver

I was wondering why you’ve had more than five visitors on here at any one time and then it hit me.
7 SpruceGoose Jul 27th, 2005 at 7:41 pm

note the irony in engglish (blush)
8 Andrew Jul 27th, 2005 at 8:05 pm

Oh dear, were we not paying you enough attention? Diddums.

From now on, no feeding trolls.
9 SpruceGoose Jul 28th, 2005 at 12:45 pm

I made a non offensive point trying to encourage some form of intellectual debate, your response was to say the least caustic. I played nice - what was the problem? Regardless I have to say that if you publish your life on the internet you have to expect to run into all sorts of people, simply ignoring them isn’t going to help because you know what… they’ll wonder why you talked in the first place and your cowboy boots will still be dissed. Create a login facility or do not post at all. I am not part of your encapsulated, fabulated life on the internet like your friends simon et al. but you can talk to OUTSIDERS (cue omninous Wagnerian score). I’m curious as to why you post, really I am, it interests me. I ask that you shed some light on WHY you post as opposed to WHAT YOU post.

Now if that isn’t a fair enough question I don’t know what is.
10 Simon Jul 28th, 2005 at 2:51 pm

Your post was readable English, alas the term cultural relativism, which seems to under pin your entire comment while Andrew mentioned it in passing, escapes me. I was planning on quizing him in person but I couldn’t resist posting my confusion, especially since it is not the first time a post of yours has appeared almost deliberately unclear (business wank anyone?)
Andrew was probably responded to your later two sentence paragraph which juxtaposes two unrelated concepts, namely righteous indignation and the definition of wandwaver, followed by what could be read as an insult towards the magnitude of his readership. I can tell you from personal experience that it is both satisfyingly long and broad
11 Andrew Jul 28th, 2005 at 3:10 pm

Ok, let me explain.

The last time you made a comment that appeared to make no sense, I asked for clarification, which you didn’t give. I’m interested in debate, but not against what appears to be nonsense. If no explanation will be forthcoming after a request, what’s the point in me answering? That I don’t know you is nothing to do with anything.

I wasn’t being deliberately impolite; I was simply expressing confusion. You, however, were then rude. Which isn’t nice.
12 SpruceGoose Jul 28th, 2005 at 3:50 pm

Okeydokey I’ll break it down for ya:

Quote: ‘Yes but to what extent does individualism factor?’

Explanation: As I understand cultural relativism to which you seem opposed it is the assertion that one cannot cast judgements upon cultures significantly differing from their own and that judgements can only be made from the inside of the culture to which you belong. So…to what extent does this apply to micro-cultures within cultures? If we take that further how can we not assert that each individual carries what is arguably a view of the world or culture in his head. If we do not cast judgements ‘outside’ of ourselves and indeed make the effort to agree with those practices purely BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT then we will ultimately walk around with our head in our hands wondering why no one understands us and why anyone would want to hurt us. So concepts of moralistic duty and even culture would dissapear due to our self insulation. Of course we’re always right, the individual is right even when everyone else says he’s dead wrong, however the individual must concede precisely because he feels to be so correct in himself otherwise anarchy would prevail. My snipe at Dawkins whom I’ve noticed you’re a big fan of is regarding this issue of moral sensibility, Dawkins theories do not stand up to complex moral dilemmas. He seems to believe that the communication of scientific evidence and not faith is what keeps the world in communion but something Dawkins consistently neglects to mention in his works is how one must have a degree of faith in both his methods (e.g. tools) and the results found. Dawkins seems to believe that the physicality of our world somehow relays an absolute quantifiable truth yet String and M-Theory as I understand are continually questioning and undermining the reliability of the perceptible physical laws of our universe. Individual faith is what keeps the debate going, there is no quantifiable truth on this blog simply conviction and the assertion that I can judgements upon you and you me precisely because we differ. And what the hell is a ‘business wank’ Simon!?
13 SpruceGoose Jul 28th, 2005 at 3:58 pm

errata: assertion that I can ‘cast’ judgements upon you…
14 Simon Jul 28th, 2005 at 6:08 pm

Since no one can know everything and everyone some hint of faith is required. There is a link to a commentary by James Randi on this blog (del.icio.us link post) which pretty much covers this. Scientific methodology holds at its core the mandate to constantly question ones assumptions when faced with new evidence and to re-evaluate existing works. Science does not shy from this task. In this way we can have confidence instead of mere faith in the results of scientific study knowing that it has been performed rigorously and any assumptions have been clearly stated. If flaws are found in the methodology or better ways of doing something are found then these are incorporated and where they effect existing works these are re-evaluated under the new methods. So, your entire Dawkins rebuttal is a (false) attempt to liken his passion for science to religion, which historically has no such review methods and glosses over as much as possible.

As for the rest of the post, you seem to be showing why cultural relativism is a bad thing, which seems unnecessary for the purposes of debate since that appears to be the view already held.

And finally, you will have to ask Andrew about business wank. Actually, if you had read the posts you commented on previously you should already know.
15 SpruceGoose Jul 28th, 2005 at 7:34 pm

Incorrect. I did not at any point claim that cultural relativism was a negative thing but tried more to highlight why it is absolutely useless to categorize people into ‘cultures’ in the first place. This isn’t a question of whether we can cast judgement upon other cultures or not, this is a question of how we define culture in the first place. Claiming that democracy is human is about as tenable as expecting me to remember every shitty little remark that is posted on this blog such as ‘business wank’.

I’m also curious as to how you can re-evaluate your methods based upon the inconsistency and flaws of a previous template. That’s kinda like expecting me to believe you can turn water into wine.
16 Andrew Jul 28th, 2005 at 7:41 pm

All right, let’s not get nasty here.

Firstly, when I said ‘democracy is human’, what I meant was that I think it works for all humanity, not just ‘the western world’. Which I think is what you’re saying too. I’m not claiming it’s an absolute moral truth, just that the logic can apply to anybody, whatever culture or creed you happen to subscribe or belong to.

I’m completely with you on the concept of ‘cultures’, btw. You should see some of my rants about patriotism
Businesswank is a general-purpose phrase I made up that’s used to describe overly lyrical nonsense most commonly found in business areas.

Regarding reevaluating methods - that’s what science is all about, afaik. You learn from mistakes. Why would you consider that impossible?

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.