[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Great answers as always.

In many of these countries Women get executed for being raped, etc. But you know that. I know this seems worse because it is so shocking and so right now.

Actually, it doesn’t seem worse to me. As a matter of fact, one of the things that caused me to have an epiphany regarding the moral danger of cultural relativism was a discussion the 'dash' site a few years ago where feminists--in the name of not being culturally imperialist--excused the stoning of a woman who was raped on the basis that women in America were still not paid equal money for equal work and therefore we had no room to be exercised about the punishment of women who were raped. At that point I realized something had gone seriously, deeply wrong.

You are right . Countries are full moral agents and it probably is belittling of me to wish that the US were a better example and that we ourselves acted better in the realm of torture and execution and so forth. Like Jess said, if we even had full civil rights for our selves it might help...but maybe not.

Here is why I am skeptical of this idea that IF the United States were a better example then other nations would behave differently: look at the experience of the civil rights movement. The United States, despite what we might think, is not unique in having a sizable ethnic minority population. However, after the Civil Rights movement showed great success in the U.S. did it substantially change the way that, for instance, the fate of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka? Nope, not at all. I'm not sure that we can find an example of a foreign national government deciding to broaden the circle of inclusion in their nation to include an ethnic minority *because* of the civil rights movement.

The countries who voted to take out the part about sexual orientation are not all yellow and brown, but some of them are allies of the US, maybe that is something to look at? My Argentine childhood with the US in the background pulling strings was decades ago, yes. I should get over it and so should other countries. But does it work like that? History builds on itself and the same things repeat. Maybe none of this has anything to do with these countries wanting to take a stand that the "West" can't tell them what to do (kind of reminds me of states right fight here), but it kind of seems like that...though, several of the countries are in the "West".

Firstly, while not all of them are brown or yellow the vast majority of them are. Most of those nations I would not consider part of the West (in this usage, the West isn't a geographical term but a cultural one. If your nation does not draw its roots from Greco-Roman civilization with a line connecting the European Renaissance to the present day your nation isn't a Western one. I'm not saying 'get over it', I'm saying---well, let me put it this way. I am one generation removed from Jim Crow segregation and no more than three generations (because of the generational gulf between my parents and I) from bondage. Does that excuse me from acting right? If I were a racial bigot and homophobic ass would you excuse my behavior as the legacy of slavery? Would you excuse that behavior as I beat you and/or your loved ones to a pulp? I think you wouldn't excuse it. I am saying that no matter WHAT history of colonization or imperial subjection a nation has gone through, it does not let that nation off the moral hook.

I don't know what the answer is. I have a difficult time with people who automatically follow what their religion teaches and I know you do too. Yes, we can boycott countries based on this vote, but what about the countries who did not vote or who abstained? There are no surprises on the list of who voted, but if a few more other countries had stood up for what is right, the vote would not have gone as it did. It is so sad that a vote about a group of human's right to be alive should be so political.

I, for one, do not think rights should be up for a vote that's why they are rights. Rights are not negotiable, in my book. Either they exist or they do not exist and if they exist they transcend local culture, political history or democratic voting.

While I am against the death penalty, I can see your point about the difference between people who commit crimes and people who don't. But who gets to pick the what crimes are heinous?

My examples were chosen very deliberately. Is there ANYONE here who would argue that setting off a 10 kiloton tactical nuclear device in the middle of New York City would be a heinous act? Is there ANYONE here would debate that releasing back into the wild the only virus medical science has ever actually defeated would be a heinous act? Keep in mind that smallpox killed fully a third of the people who encountered in Europe where people had *immunity*. Here in the Western Hemisphere where people hadn't evolved defenses against the virus that number jumps into the 80% range.

We the people of the USA? Is it ok to execute people for political reasons?

No. That is not a large scale crime against the species.

for being raped? for torture...but not if it is during war time?

No, because that is not a large scale crime against the species.

Cheers
Aj