[iup=3575053]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:I don't think those compliments are sincere at all.
Au contraire. Believe me, I'm very sincere when I say I want no part of the progressive agenda. I prefer good old tolerance, free speech and freedom of opinion.
[iup=3574917]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:...you seem to be happy to support UKIP, who are bigots, racists and homophobes.
And there you go, again. It's that old progressive black magic: say a thing and make it so. Please give me hard evidence that UKIP make it party policy to support racism, bigotry and homophobia.
Homophobia- They're against gay marriage.
Bigotry- They're led by a man who has started publicly he doesn't want to live next to Romanians.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
[iup=3575053]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:I don't think those compliments are sincere at all.
Au contraire. Believe me, I'm very sincere when I say I want no part of the progressive agenda. I prefer good old tolerance, free speech and freedom of opinion.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
[iup=3574762]lex-man[/iup] wrote:Well I'm going to risk drawing Cal's ire, but surly any questions about cultures being better or worse than other cultures is at some point subjective. You need some criteria to measure what makes one culture better than another and then you have to rate how important each of those factors are to each other. Basically saying our culture is better than their culture is just stating an opinion.
I think we could create some kind of consensus to what could be viewed as the rating system for culture, which to me at least seems like the best way to reach some kind of objective view on what should be considered a good culture. But doing so might not reach your idea of what constitutes a good culture. For example I think a lot of people in the world would consider religiousness a bigger factor in cultural importance than say access to health care or you know not killing people.
But then I think the whole problem is a lot more complicated than just working out who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Every power involved has blood on their hands and should share some of the blame over making the mess. The US and UK's involvement in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of ISIS. Look at stuff like Abu Ghraib and quantomeno we've basically made recruiting material for them.
In the end, what you're saying is that the inequities of any number of mid-East cultures which routinely see bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, brutalisation, censorship, capital punishment (medieval style) etc, etc as a way of life are to be not merely tolerated by those us in the free world, but considered perfectly acceptable - nay, even 'equal' to our own cultures - because, you know, diversity and all that? And it's all our fault. Not theirs.
Is that how progressives see the world?
No I'm pointing out that any judgement about the merits or otherwise of a culture is pretty much a matter of subjective opinion.
Another point I'll suggest is that culture isn't wholly defined by whoever rules a particular part of land. For example bands like Radiohead actively hate our government but they still constitute part of the culture. The same is true for places like Iran where female free running is very popular. I imagine large portion of the population of other Islamic states are full of people who don't really approve of the killing but are powerless to stop it.