Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
It is a culture quite different from ours.
A very sad story. Glad they caught the criminals. I hope the girl can recover the best she can.  |
Admitted, I would not be surprised if the people came from north Africa or the middle East. But fact is the article did not mention the origin of the family - and crimes against children, child abuse and rape take place in Western societies as well. It's just that the Western society in general is not forgiving such crimes, and instead takes a legal stand against them, whereas some other cultures remain silent about it, or even defend it - or even foster it, as to be seen in comments of Khomenei who excused raping babies as long as no deep penetration takes place and the adult male takes pleasure from it. In some "cultures" the cultural focus is exclusively on that latter part: males taking pleasure from consuming others, including women, girls, babies.
This difference of
taking a stand against such crimes, and
silently or actively accepting them, is what sets our culture apart from "theirs", and makes our culture superior to theirs, while theirs is a culture only in that it is more primitive, barbaric and inhumane than ours.
So, what is this posting about? To make clear that simply saying "it is a culture quite different from ours" - simply is not enough, means nothing, and only reduces our own cultural value in order to not upset those who are more primitive than us.
If you meant it that way, take this as my rebuffing answer. If I reacted over-sensible to you and you meant something different, see it as a preemptive reaction. Cultural relativising takes place so often today, and always to the disadvantage of ours, and it ennobles the barbary of others instead, that I react allergic to it. People are not all of the same worth, and cultures are not all of the same worth, too. Saying that is a provocation today - because it expresses an unwanted truth that most people try so hard to hide. They fear conflict and confrontation more than anything else, even more than the loss of their freedom - and thus try to reject that there are any differences at all, so that that proclaimed, total uniformity shall lead to peaceful utopia and - tolerance. That is ironic, because that is a contradiction. Because where there are not differences - you cannot tolerate anything anymore. Because then you cannot define "yourself" in separation from the "other", and cannot define what you will to tolerate in the other - and what not. It's not about being intolerant in order to show differences that prove one's own superiority in values, it is about understanding that toleranc needs to have limits and should not be abused for refusing all difference in order to create the illusion that this would be what guarantees "peace". It does not, quite the opposite is true. Being infinitely tolerant, in the end that is a state of where people say there is nothing worth to stand up for and there is nothing worth to be defended - not even freedom. And peace without freedom is nothing: just - most likely - tyranny.
Many talk of infinite ammounts of tolerance and paying respect to what is not respectable at all. They declare doing so a high moral virtue.
And then even barbary becomes negotiable.
Such are the sick lessons major parts of politicians try to hammer into our brains today.