When one person commits an atrocity, it is considered a crime and is met with punishment. When millions of people commit atrocities, it is considered a culture and is met with tolerance, amirite?

Unless that one person is rich and powerful, then it's called politics.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Lol true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Unless that one person is rich, famous, and Charlie Sheen in which case it's called #winning.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not necessarily. The very nature of an atrocity is dependent upon perspective. If the entire world committed "atrocities," accepting it as a norm, that would defeat the definition and the way we use such a word. In other words, If millions of people perceive an act as moral, it's no longer an atrocity, is it?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

but hes talking about culture not the 'entire world' take female circumcision. Truely horrific stuff but accepted by some cultures still.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What specific culture are you talking about?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think this applies to many cultures, but the one that I have in mind is strict Islamic culture in the middle east.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What exactly do they do that we consider "tolerable"? Here I am assuming you are talking about the Muslim Extremists, such as Al Qaeda, and we don't consider their actions tolerable.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, I'm not talking about them. I'm referring to the strict Islamic law that the governments and the people follow. Like punishing or killing women for being raped. Or beating women for showing their skin. This isn't exactly an atrocity, but the government recently mandated that dolls made for children wear traditional Islamic dress. Like I said, that's not an atrocity, but if someone tried to force toy companies to make dolls wearing a certain type of clothing here, everyone would freak out and it wouldn't be allowed. But when something like that happens in the middle east, everyone thinks it's perfectly okay because "that's just their culture".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, I can see your point then.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Wonderful.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I thought you were supposed to see everything wary

.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, you have a point, yes. But what you're seeing is what the media is wanting you to see. Yes, this does happen. But only in very //extreme// communities and families. For example: When I went to Dubai over the summer, there were places where women wore burqas and scarves and covered 98% of their body. But this was the rural places, and where technology hasn't quite caught up yet. But in the city, there were clubs, girls wearing tank tops and booty shorts, girls and boys holding hands.; you wouldn't have known you were in the Middle East if it hadn't been for the 130 degree weather. And when I went to Afghanistan last summer also, I //chose// not to wear a scarf because I didn't believe that I had to cover myself just because I was in an Islamic country. And guess what? People were actually **fine** with it. I even got the occasional smile. I think they just want someone to stand up first, because later on, I saw more females without scarves. What a lot of people don't know is that covering yourself up is not mandatory in Islam, women can choose whether they want to or not to. I know I sound like I'm preaching, but I want to show you a first-hand evidence of life in Islam.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Islam isn't a place. That's like saying "life in Christianity" or "life in Juadism." It doesn't make sense...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, Islam is not a place. It is a religion and a way of life. And people in Middle-Eastern countries //choose// to live that way in life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Right, but you said "evidence of life in Islam." Perhaps you meant "evidence of life in Islamic countries?"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, I did. I ran out of characters though. :(

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Dubai is in India, right? Or is it Saudi Arabia? I searched it and a few Dubai's came up. Either way, the countries I'm referring to are Afghanistan and Iran, mainly. And your trip to Afghanistan sounds interesting. Maybe you're right and the information I have is just painting a false picture of Afghanistan as a terrible place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Dubai is in Emirates. The 'atrocities' you mentioned are true and they do take place but only in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, 3 countries out of twenty something Islamic countries out there. That's generalising.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Dubai is a part of the United Arab Emirates, It is really small and is located south of the Persian Gulf. It's super gorgeous too, a perfect place to travel to but you'll need a lot of cool clothes that don't absorb heat. Afghanistan is very interesting, the people were surprisingly nicer then I thought they would be. Now I'm not going to lie to you by saying that everything the media shows of Afghanistan is false, and it's not that bad. Because it is, in the //rural// areas. Like Kandahar and Helmand Province. Many places in the south have Taliban from Pakistan, which the U.S. soldiers are currently fighting against. Again, I would know because my sister and her husband are currently in Camp Leatherneck risking their lives for us. Haven't you noticed that media almost //always// shows the bad places in third-world countries? Like Mexico, yah, it's really bad over there right now, but their are some places that are gorgeous over there. Lucky for me, I went to Kabul, which is so much better than the southern provinces. The media shows you people that live in mud houses and are famished. Do you wanna see my house in Afghanistan? And we're a middle-class family: http://ctrlv.in/65905

by Anonymous 12 years ago

For some reason I can't get to that picture. And okay, that makes sense. I'm glad to hear it!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

LOL guess what bro; I'm Arab living in an Arab country and I don't wear a veil and I show as much skin as I want and no one gives a fuck. In fact I dress more decently than most women in my country, Lebanon. I've played with barbies and bratz who dress as sluts my whole life, and they are sold eveywbere here, not those hijab wearing dolls. There are more Christians than Muslims in Lebanon, and the country's full of clubs, partying, beaches, etc. And people here actually know how to live and have fun. Please don't just base the whole middle east over just a few countries in it, like Saudi Arabia. Just google "Lebanese girls" or "Tunisian girls" or "morrocan girls" or "Syrian girls" on google and I think my point will be made. Even in Egypt and UAE, even though they may be strict in some places there, but life couldn't be better in other places there like Dubai,Abu Dhabi, and Sharm El Sheikh.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Thank you for informing me. Now that I know that, I'll no longer generalize all Islamic/Arab countries.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ugh, it's sad people like you who love to talk about topics they are not knowledgeable about. there is a difference between Islamic law and culture, learn it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Islamic law reflects Islamic culture.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

gold star for you. but with that being said, Islamic law does not reflect Arab culture. and the last time I checked there is no country today that fully follows Sharia law. so it's unfair to blame the extreme and simply ridiculous actions of those people on Sharia law. the religion of Islam says nothing about women not being able to drive nor does it allow cruel mistreatment of women; therefore, none of these actions are a result of Islam and Sharia Law

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe not the way it it was intended by the people that created Islam, but they are the result of the modern interpretations and practice of Islam.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Islam was not created by people, but that's beside the point! :) they are a result of a misinterpretation of Islam. the Holy Qur'an states: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error” [Al-Qur'an 2:256]. so the bottom line, which is simple and clear, you cannot force people to do things and you cannot force them to follow any religion. forced actions, such as cover or you'll get beaten, are not a part of Islam. the religion of Islam places great importance on intention, and if you're being forced into things then your intentions are most likely not for the sake of God, but because "my culture said so."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The Qur'an also says "make war on the unbelievers." Since these statements are contradictory I think it shows that you can't determine the nature of a religion by single statements. And the horrible things done in the name of Islam may very well be a misinterpretation of Islam, but that does mean they are a part of Islam today. They may not be right or condoned by the holy book, but they are a part of Islam the way it is practiced in those places.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

any discussion on Qur’anic verses that refer to violence would be meaningless, without a study of the surrounding context. I suppose you're referring to these verses(which when read in context dont remotely suggest an exhortation for Muslims to be vicious or hateful towards people of other faiths): “Fight in the cause of Allah THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth NOT transgressors. & slay them wherever ye catch them, & turn them out from WHEREVER THEY Turned you out; for tumult & oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (FIRST) fight you there...” [Al-Qur'an 2:190-191] see, the Qur’an actually requires that Muslims conduct themselves with fairness & dignity in all matters, & especially in regard to interfaith relations: “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly & justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." [Al-Qur'an 60:8] so according to your logic, that means molesting little boys is a part of the Catholic faith? the religion is against it but it still happens..

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually I don't think the religion is against that. I doubt that the Bible says anything about molesting children. I don't know for sure, but it seems unlikely that the Bible would mention that. And no, I would not call molesting little boys a part of the Catholic faith because they don't do it in the name of their faith. They don't do it for the glory of God, they don't do it because they think their religion says they should. They do it because they aren't allowed to have sex with women (which doesn't make sense because according to the Bible they certainly aren't allowed to have sex with males, either).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I find it ironic that this would come from an atheist. Out of curiosity, are you a moral relativist?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I believe that there are no absolute morals, no absolute rights or wrongs. Only what each individual consider right and wrong. I believe this because I'm an atheist and I believe that there are no absolute consequences for what we do and no deity that decides what is right or wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Considers*

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Then how can you be opposed to cultural tolerance? Your post heavily implies that some cultures are better than others, which only holds given moral absolutes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

According to my morals, some cultures are better than others. You and I already had a conversation just like this a while ago, do you remember?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha. Now I do. I was thinking that was with someone else.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha nope that was me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Atheists don't have morals that are inherently different from the morals of theists. There are theists who believe in moral relativism and there are atheists who don't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Atheists don't really have a choice but to be moral relativists

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Read "The Moral Landscape", by Sam Harris. Or at least read the cliffnotes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know of his stuff, though I haven't read it. Doesn't he use the neuroscience of suffering to try to account for absolute morals?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Something like that. His philosophy seems to be that if something helps mankind or makes us happier/better off, it is a moral thing to do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well that seems to presuppose the intrinsic moral value of humans, which I see no reason to believe in apart from God.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh no, he has no illusions about human morality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Then advancing the human race or maximizing our happiness is completely worthless, and nobody has an obligation to do so.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's not worthless in our minds.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's circular reasoning. You have still failed to account for anything objective, because the intrinsic moral value of humans is only important in your mind....

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, it is. I'm not arguing that. Morals are only important because we say they are (and some help ensure the survival of our species).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well that just makes you a moral relativist, which is what you denied.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't deny that. But there are variations of moral relativism.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"There are theists who believe in moral relativism and there are atheists who don't." You explicitly denied that atheists were bound to moral relativism, and then failed to account for any objective morals apart from God.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't say that...did I?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hahaha. Oops. No you didn't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well regardless, relative morals are just opinions, and are therefore meaningless.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In the ultimate scheme of things, yes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So why should you expect somebody to live a life that helps other people, if its ultimately meaningless?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because it isn't meaningless in the moment.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But at the conclusion of it all, it doesn't matter if everybody lives like Mother Teresa or like Hitler.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Right.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

When you decide not to obey rules in the Bible, you are basing your morals off opinion. Also, does the Bible say anything about acts of pedophilia?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Atheist are just people who don't believe in God(s). It doesn't even mean they don't practice a religion. There are lots of atheist relgions-like certain forms of Buddhism. A belief in no gods does not mean a belief in moral relativism.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well unless you're referring to something outside of this world, its still arbitrary.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Christians are moral relativists, too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Please explain

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They claim to get all their morals from the Bible, but they ignore a large portion of Leviticus. Before you reply, read Matthew 5:17-19.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A lot of the things in Leviticus were Jewish customs or laws, not necessarily God-given commands. Besides, you're not arguing about moral absolutes. You're arguing about Biblical inerrancy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but (I'm stepping outside of Leviticus now) death penalty for homosexuals (Leviticus 18:23), being a victim of rape within a city (Deuteronomy 22:23-27), apostasy (13:12-15), being a little teenage shit (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and having sex with a woman who is not on her period (Leviticus 20:18) is a law, not a custom. I am arguing about moral absolutes. I am talking about how Christians do not follow the laws in the book that sets out moral absolutes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But the argument then becomes whether or not the Bible is correct in saying those things, not whether or not there are moral absolutes. It would be a bizarre form of Theism to believe in moral relativism, because moral absolutes reflect God's perfect character.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nope, the argument remains in whether Christians obey those laws. If you don't obey every law in the Bible, that makes you a moral relativist.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha. No, it really doesn't. Moral relativism is not the belief that one can infer oneself to a set of morals. It's the belief that nothing is actually right or wrong. There is nothing incoherent about the belief that objective moral values exist, and that the Bible asserts some morals values incorrectly.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So, if the Bible asserts some moral values incorrectly, how does one determine which morals are true and which ones are false?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well that's completely separate from moral objectivity vs. Moral subjectivity. But you can infer to them through the intrinsic moral value of humans, through divine revelation, or just through moral experience.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So, why can't atheists have intrinsic moral values?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

By intrinsic moral values, I mean that humans are valuable, and should therefore be protected and treated well. But under atheism, I see no reason to think that humans are any more valuable than animals, bacteria, or even non living objects.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because humans contribute more to society, they are more valuable and should therefore be protected. Because humans experience emotion, they should be treated better. You have a very misguided view of atheism.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Contribute more to society? Society being humans?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

the point of leviticus was to show us that we cannot be perfect according to gods laws. Which then shows us that we needed Jesus to die for or sins because then we could be with god. Please understand fully why things are in the bible before using them to prove a point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Did you read Matthew 5:17-19?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

yes I did

by Anonymous 12 years ago

as I'm sure someone has already stated, you're being extremely bigoted in your comment by assuming that atheists don't have morals. Your statement was a generalization and therefore untrue. Even if it was based on some truth, blurting out things like that is just offensive. How would you like it if I said that people who believe in a god only do good things for fear of being punished? That people who believe in god are not good people, but are only sucking up to a figure or force for selfish reasons? It doesn't matter how true or untrue a statement may be, some things are offensive and uncalled for. It is my personal belief that people are all basically good, and that is the motive for good deeds. However, if you'd like to believe there are cruel, emotionless people in the world and that all atheists fall under that category, expect to be fought with.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was apparently unclear. I never intended to state, neither explicity nor implicitly, that atheists cannot be moral people. I apologize if it came across that way. What I was saying is that if atheism is true, then there are no objective moral values.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

bullfighting ):

by Anonymous 12 years ago

After reading some of these comments, I'm not too sure where I stand. On one hand, we can't let other cultures or groups get away with atrocities such as murder, like the Nazi's did, but on the other hand, who are we to tell different cultures what's right and what's wrong? Where is the line drawn?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think it's all according to each nation's (or individual's) morals. And I think a good way to measure the right of a group to tell another group what is right and what is wrong is the civilization and success/prosperity of that group. For instance, I think we'd be perfectly justified to go to a tribe in the jungle that eats people and tell them they are wrong to do so, because that's the moral code that we follow and we're a world power! We must be on the right path or we would still be living in mud huts like them. I'm not saying that right or wrong is based on which culture is the most successful. I'm saying that (for the most part) the customs (for lack of a better word) that we have are obviously better than the customs that a dirt-poor civilization in a jungle has because, following these customs, we've become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this comment, simply providing food for thought. What if the dirt-poor civilizations are actually on the better path? What if it's wrong to have such extravagance and power. Maybe we just tell ourselves it is because that's what we have. (Forgive me if you've answered this before.)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe they are better off. I think the way to detetmine that would be to ask everyone here and everyone in Somalia if they are happy with their lives. I think I can the results.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Good point, but happiness is fairly relative. For instance, people may want things that others have, even if it's not truly what they desire. Also, some of the happiest people in the world are from poverty-ridden or some-what oppressed countries who are content with what they have because expectations are low. There's no right answer, obviously, just lots of confusion and second-guessing. :-)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That made sense in my head, does it make sense in text?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, that made sense and all, but it unfortunately isn't that easy, as most cultures are reluctant to give in to losing all their customs and such.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, I know, and I find that irritating. Like those people you see on Taboo that mutilate themselves in hopes of having a good harvest. "Our ancestors have done this for thousands of years." And you haven't figured out that it's not actually doing anything?!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But if they want to believe it, who are we to go in there and tell them to change? Like say, if, a long time from now, a new civilization passes us and tries to tell us to just change everything, would we want to?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If they are better off than us, I think so. If aliens landed here and they had a utopian society which was achievable for us if we adopted their customs, I would do it. And compared to those people that live in mud huts and eat rats, our society is pretty damn close to utopian.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, and I agree, but getting one person change and getting a whole civilization to change are completely different. We still have cultures who live without technology and such even in America.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

True. Hmm. People are puzzling.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

As I see it, you cannot force cultures to change the regulations of clothing, religion, food, so basically the culture. You CAN try to stop them when there is murder and actions that hurt the human's well being.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Personally, I do not believe in an absolute right or wrong; an individual and/or culture should be able to define morality for themselves. On the other hand, if a culture attempts to impose their morals on another culture, then cultural tolerance should come second to the preservation of the "victim society's" morals.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

When you commit a crime, you know you are doing something you shouldn't. When you commit an atrocity because that is accepted by everyone in your culture, you may not even realize you are doing a bad thing. You might be acting out of ignorance rather than hate. I consider myself a moral person but the truth is, I'm very much a product of my experiences. If I was raised in the Southern United States in the early 1800s, I might think of slavery as normal harmless behavior. How would I know any better? I really don't think anyone develops a personal system of morality without the influence of the culture and time period they are in.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just because a person's morals can be influenced by their surroundings doesn't mean that there are no moral absolutes. That's committing the genetic fallacy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not saying there aren't moral absolutes. I'm just saying that people can be mislead and believe that bad things are good. I'm sure lots of Nazis thought they were doing the best thing for their country and didn't realize exactly what they were doing. I don't think any of us could say with absolute certainty that we wouldn't have been Nazis if we had been exposed to nothing but Nazi-propaganda our whole lives.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So you believe in moral absolutes?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The only problem is who defines the atrocity if they don't think it's one? Another culture?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm assuming the OP meant something you would consider to be an atrocity if an individual from your culture did it is suddenly accepted when it happens somewhere else. Like a lesbian being 'correctively' raped, or female genital cutting, slavery, etc.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

HUZZAR! The POTD has returned! May the postage of cats, unfunny jokes, and pointless banter, continue!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Seriously, why was there no POTD yesterday?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Let me tell you on a tale young child. The date was the 18th, the month was Febuary, and, on a small website name Amirite? Panic consumed the users, over the fact there was no Post of the Day. Was Anthony dead? Had he given up? Rumors where flying round, becoming more and more unlikely. It seemed like the end was nigh, with widespread panic, and users not being able to cope without cats, or the banter. And finally, 24 hours after that fabled day, we got our POTD back. And all is well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well Lucyjoan, it's quite simple. If you re-arrange the letters in 'No post of the day' You get 'foop tha dony dest' If you type 'foop tha dony dest' in Google translate from English to simplified Chinese you with get 'foop THA dony DEST'. As you can see 'THA' and 'DEST' are capitalized for some reason. If you take the capitalized words and put them together, you get 'THADEST' which if said quickly sounds like 'The test' Which I obviously just passed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fucking.. but.. that's... You're pretty smart for a dolphin.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I thought it was pretty funny to read your comment thread and then the one below it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Except the millions of people who wear Crocs. That's just criminal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://ctrlv.in/65855

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In the end, it's a matter of opinion. People could put this into a different context, like underage girls wearing provocative clothing. It isn't mass murder, but it could be considered atrocious and is still practiced by young girls everywhere. It all depends on what you see as immoral.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hey, don't talk about N.Y. like that!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Like abortion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And the Post of the Day wouldn't be complete without an abortion debate! Just wait for me to get my popcorn!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I wasn't trying to start a debate (which I didn't), I was merely making an observation.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, because saying abortion is an atrocity isn't an attempt at a debate. There are some things you can't mention on the internet without knowing a debate will spawn from it. Abortion, religion, music, etc.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Everyone else is giving examples, the only thing that could have turned mine into a debate was your reply to it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, like not understanding evolution. That's an atrocity in itself.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

An example I thought of was in Mauritania (a country in Africa) overweight women are seen as beautiful so they force feed their daughters until they are overweight and crush their feet and hurt them in other ways if they won't eat, but that would be considered abuse in most other countries.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My mind went to female circumsision vs. male. Only make is acceptable in certain countries, and only female in others. Each culture sees the opposite as an atrocity.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's a very interesting topic. I think female circumcision is abhorrent especially since the main reason is because they don't want women to have any pleasure from sex and it is extremely traumatic, but I also disagree with our culture that finds male circumcision acceptable because it is unnecessary and the boys don't get a choice.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, that's the only valid argument I think. Female circumsision is also done for health purposes, so the main difference is that the girls are old enough to be traumatized and remember it afterwards. I kind of hate both.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

when someone calls a culture atrocious because it doesn't follow their cultural views it's called ethnocentrism.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hmm atrocities like leading an entire species to excinction thus ruining an eco system that we depend on like the Chinese "culture" did. All because it made "magical" soup that didn't have any actual benificial properties... I completly agree with you!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"we should all just not do it! its not like they can give us all detention!!"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Congrats on POTD!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Reality vs. Perception

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"If you kill a man, you're a murderer. Kill many and you're a conquerer. Kill them all, you're a god."

by Anonymous 11 years ago