Human Rights and "Western-Bias", and Culture

[The6thMessenger]

https://plus.google.com/b/1061520726600 ... GV5XUjcT3K

So, i had a bit of chat with a muslim on a youtube comment thread. He said that at Muhammad's time, Aisha was already old enough, even if she was just 9. Because 9 = 17 to their age, never mind the fact that she was playing dolls that when she was supposed to be old enough.

Also he said that we can't criticize the culture of another, from a different time. What, so we can't call the Jewish Holocaust or Stalin's genocide, because at their culture, at their time, it was acceptable? He's undermining the part where we as human beings learn.

There was also the part where he said that Aisha touched Muhammad's cheek while standing, from the hadith about the abbysinan thingy. Saying that Aisha was very tall for a child, and because she's tall, she's already developed. But he forgot the part where Muhammad laid down a bed.

Now, we did get to the point were we discussed why marrying Aisha at 6 and fucking her at 9 was wrong, it was because of her human rights being violated. Never mind the fact that she lived on a different time, we as modern people understood that she as a human is entitled to rights, as human rights.

Although, as i read through the Human Rights on Wikipedia, well there is this Cairo Declaration Human Rights, that they had different ideas of what rights does a human have, and just as well Saudi did not subscribed to the UDHR, because of "Western-Bias". Nevermind the fact that it was signed by many non-western countries.

Now, here is my dilemma today. Why would supposedly having different culture except them? If we are imposing the UDHR at them, isn't that we're imposing our culture into theirs?

So far, the things i could come up with is that Human Rights is not about the value of people as a member of a society or culture, it's just about being human, the rights you are entitled for being a human. Not because there isn't any universal culture, there isn't any universal Human rights, because Human Rights don't hinge on a culture, they hinge to us as a Human.

What do you think? Why does Human Rights transcends Culture?

[Red]

So, i had a bit of chat with a muslim on a youtube comment thread. He said that at Muhammad's time, Aisha was already old enough, even if she was just 9. Because 9 = 17 to their age, never mind the fact that she was playing dolls that when she was supposed to be old enough.

Well in Athens back in the day, 30 year olds married 14 year olds (usually by force). I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that Muhammed wasn't the only one who was dating someone a bit younger than him. Make of that as you wish.

Also he said that we can't criticize the culture of another, from a different time. What, so we can't call the Jewish Holocaust or Stalin's genocide, because at their culture, at their time, it was acceptable? He's undermining the part where we as human beings learn.

Well I'm pretty sure you can't compare genociding the Jews to someone marrying a nine year old. Sure, it's seen as immoral, and is on many levels. I'm not saying you can't criticize it, but I'm pretty sure you're better off giving a better example that is similar to arranged marriages. You could've said that many people had harems (and still do!), which can go against the will of the women in a harem. What I'm trying to say is that you could've gave a better comparison.

There was also the part where he said that Aisha touched Muhammad's cheek while standing, from the hadith about the abbysinan thingy. Saying that Aisha was very tall for a child, and because she's tall, she's already developed. But he forgot the part where Muhammad laid down a bed.

Uhhhhhhhhh....... what?

Now, we did get to the point were we discussed why marrying Aisha at 6 and fucking her at 9 was wrong, it was because of her human rights being violated. Never mind the fact that she lived on a different time, we as modern people understood that she as a human is entitled to rights, as human rights.

True. Not only should someone much older than her should be having intercourse ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ -, but the other thing is that, from what I read, she didn't consent to the marriage. However, I am inclined to believe that she didn't marry Moomahead at a younger age, from reading various sources, and from my friend who studies the Qu'ran. Even if Aisha did mrry Moomahead, it really doesn't prove anything other than Moomahead was probably a pedophile.

Although, as i read through the Human Rights on Wikipedia, well there is this Cairo Declaration Human Rights, that they had different ideas of what rights does a human have, and just as well Saudi did not subscribed to the UDHR, because of "Western-Bias". Nevermind the fact that it was signed by many non-western countries.

hm. explain.

What do you think? Why does Human Rights transcends Culture?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The6thMessenger]

Well in Athens back in the day, 30 year olds married 14 year olds (usually by force). I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that Muhammed wasn't the only one who was dating someone a bit younger than him. Make of that as you wish.

Them doing it as well does not make it alright. We are modern and more civilized human beings, we learn that it is wrong. And because it was done before, or done by many, it was right.

Well I'm pretty sure you can't compare genociding the Jews to someone marrying a nine year old. Sure, it's seen as immoral, and is on many levels. I'm not saying you can't criticize it, but I'm pretty sure you're better off giving a better example that is similar to arranged marriages. You could've said that many people had harems (and still do!), which can go against the will of the women in a harem. What I'm trying to say is that you could've gave a better comparison.

I didn't say they were equal. I just said that culture and time differences does not make atrocities okay. By his logic, those atrocities will also be okay because "Culture and Time Difference".

Uhhhhhhhhh....... what?

Yeah, he was saying that Aisha was uncommonly tall, and appealed to a hadith.

True. Not only should someone much older than her should be having intercourse ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ -, but the other thing is that, from what I read, she didn't consent to the marriage. However, I am inclined to believe that she didn't marry Moomahead at a younger age, from reading various sources, and from my friend who studies the Qu'ran. Even if Aisha did mrry Moomahead, it really doesn't prove anything other than Moomahead was probably a pedophile.

Yep, clinical pedophile. Did you also know that before 9 years old, he used to rub his dick at Aisha's thigh instead of penetrating her?

hm. explain.

Well, consider this. The UDHR was "founded on the secular interpretation of Judeo-Christian worldview", and is not compatible with the shari'a law, that's why the CDHR was formed for the Islamic countries.

If we force the entire world the UDHR, wouldn't it be just cultural intolerance? Just a culture being forced into another culture.

What do you think? Why does Human Rights transcends Culture?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/quote]

So far, i was thinking, UDHR was founded on secular Judeo-Christian view.

So what? Is it because it conflicts with the Islamic World view? Certain world views conflict with Medicine and Science, but we consider it over their world-view because it is objectively good for the welfare of everyone.

Human Rights was founded for the welfare of human being. Even if it referred on a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian world view, so what? It might not be perfect, but it is for the welfare of everyone.

Islam is inherently morally inferior, with it's sharia law is not ideal for the welfare of everyone, so it's not chosen. UDHR is just as the Medicine in the form of Law, it is what is objectively good for the welfare of every human being.

[Red]

Well in Athens back in the day, 30 year olds married 14 year olds (usually by force). I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that Muhammed wasn't the only one who was dating someone a bit younger than him. Make of that as you wish.

Them doing it as well does not make it alright.

I never said that

We are modern and more civilized human beings, we learn that it is wrong. And because it was done before, or done by many, it was right.

Well it really all depends on what you mean by civilized. I'm pretty sure the Athenians thought what they were doing was pretty civilized. Not to mention that some ancient civilizations were more accepting and tolerant of gender and race. For example, in ancient Egypt, patriarchy was quite rare, as women were allowed to have businesses, can choose to divorce, etc.. We seem have to patriarchy in the first world, i.e. street/sexual harassment, lower wages (for some jobs), abuse, etc.. So there were a few civilized per say characteristics that we would prefer to have in todays time period.

I didn't say they were equal. I just said that culture and time differences does not make atrocities okay. By his logic, those atrocities will also be okay because "Culture and Time Difference".

I never said that you said that they were equal. I'm saying you could've used a better comparison.

Yep, clinical pedophile. Did you also know that before 9 years old, he used to rub his dick at Aisha's thigh instead of penetrating her?

Toooooooo much information man you're too much information man

hm. explain.

Well, consider this. The UDHR was "founded on the secular interpretation of Judeo-Christian worldview", and is not compatible with the shari'a law, that's why the CDHR was formed for the Islamic countries.

If we force the entire world the UDHR, wouldn't it be just cultural intolerance? Just a culture being forced into another culture.

Oh.

So what? Is it because it conflicts with the Islamic World view? Certain world views conflict with Medicine and Science, but we consider it over their world-view because it is objectively good for the welfare of everyone.

Human Rights was founded for the welfare of human being. Even if it referred on a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian world view, so what? It might not be perfect, but it is for the welfare of everyone.

Islam is inherently morally inferior, with it's sharia law is not ideal for the welfare of everyone, so it's not chosen. UDHR is just as the Medicine in the form of Law, it is what is objectively good for the welfare of every human being.

Most likely

[The6thMessenger]

I never said that

Yes, but it's implied. Why do you need to say that in the first place?

Well it really all depends on what you mean by civilized. I'm pretty sure the Athenians thought what they were doing was pretty civilized. Not to mention that some ancient civilizations were more accepting and tolerant of gender and race. For example, in ancient Egypt, patriarchy was quite rare, as women were allowed to have businesses, can choose to divorce, etc.. We seem have to patriarchy in the first world, i.e. street/sexual harassment, lower wages (for some jobs), abuse, etc.. So there were a few civilized per say characteristics that we would prefer to have in todays time period.

Yes, but we learn. We are better people, because we know better. And that is how we should judge things, based on our better understanding of morality.

I never said that you said that they were equal. I'm saying you could've used a better comparison.

Sure, but they work just as fine. It shows my points a bit clearer.

Toooooooo much information man you're too much information man

*troll

Did i ever tell you the time that he fucked his dead aunt so she could go into heaven?

So what? Is it because it conflicts with the Islamic World view? Certain world views conflict with Medicine and Science, but we consider it over their world-view because it is objectively good for the welfare of everyone.

Human Rights was founded for the welfare of human being. Even if it referred on a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian world view, so what? It might not be perfect, but it is for the welfare of everyone.

Islam is inherently morally inferior, with it's sharia law is not ideal for the welfare of everyone, so it's not chosen. UDHR is just as the Medicine in the form of Law, it is what is objectively good for the welfare of every human being.

Most likely

Most likely what? Do you agree that UDHR is universal because it gives rights to every human, based on what is objectively right?

[Red]

I never said that

Yes, but it's implied.

How?

Yes, but we learn. We are better people, because we know better. And that is how we should judge things, based on our better understanding of morality.

I'm just saying that some ancient civilizations have some attributes that some of us desire in our current civilization today.

Sure, but they work just as fine. It shows my points a bit clearer.

How? I'm saying that having a relationship with someone younger than you can't be compared to genocide. I'm saying that genocide what just the most over the top answer.

So what? Is it because it conflicts with the Islamic World view? Certain world views conflict with Medicine and Science, but we consider it over their world-view because it is objectively good for the welfare of everyone.

Human Rights was founded for the welfare of human being. Even if it referred on a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian world view, so what? It might not be perfect, but it is for the welfare of everyone.

Islam is inherently morally inferior, with it's sharia law is not ideal for the welfare of everyone, so it's not chosen. UDHR is just as the Medicine in the form of Law, it is what is objectively good for the welfare of every human being.

Most likely

Most likely what? Do you agree that UDHR is universal because it gives rights to every human, based on what is objectively right?

what's the question?

[The6thMessenger]

How?

Why the need to say it?

I'm just saying that some ancient civilizations have some attributes that some of us desire in our current civilization today.

Well, i'm just saying that we as modern people know better. While not everything in the past is bad, there is still things that are bad by our current standards.

How? I'm saying that having a relationship with someone younger than you can't be compared to genocide. I'm saying that genocide what just the most over the top answer.

Because the level of the bad is irrelevant.

Because at his logic, we can never deem anything done in the past by another culture as "Bad", because "Culture and difference of time".

It's like disregarding the fact that we as human beings learn, and we know better.

what's the question?

Whether Human Rights transcends culture.

[Red]

How?

Why the need to say it?

Don't bullshit your way out of this.

Well, i'm just saying that we as modern people know better. While not everything in the past is bad, there is still things that are bad by our current standards.

And vice versa.

Because the level of the bad is irrelevant.

I never said that it was, I'm just saying you could have used a better comparison.

what's the question?

Whether Human Rights transcends culture.[/quote]

meh

[knot]

Human rights has become a deeply flawed deontological concept. To give an example, in Europe we have been accepting returning ISIS terrorists because kicking them out of the country would be violating their human rights that guarantee them statehood. This is complete insanity, and a result of slack-jawed regressive liberalism.

Instead what we have to look at is actions and their consequences. A 9 year old girl is not gonna know what sex is, much less be able to consent to it because her brain is far from mature. We also know that paedophilia is likely to result in life-long psychological damage of the child. What about the good? Well, Mohammed presumably got some kind of short-term pleasure from the sex.. So we have a case where the negative consequences of the action dramatically outweigh the good consequences, which makes paedophilia a completely unjustifiable action. There's also no reason to believe that girls matured faster during that time in the Middle East.

They quite clearly didn't understand human psychology in the 7th century. Does that mean we can't say paedophilia was wrong at that time? No, ignorance does not make appalling behaviour acceptable

[The6thMessenger]

Don't bullshit your way out of this.

Don't bullshit your way out of this.

That was irrelevant on the topic at hand, it does not contribute to the discussion. Being done by many people, and many people at their time does not absolve them.

And vice versa.

And vise versa. Vise versa what exactly?

It's like saying Evolution was incorrect because at the time of it's inception it doesn't have enough evidences, nevermind the new evidences that were garnered over the years that eventually proved it to be true.

I never said that it was, I'm just saying you could have used a better comparison.

And i'm saying that it's fine for me.

Human rights has become a deeply flawed deontological concept. To give an example, in Europe we have been accepting returning ISIS terrorists because kicking them out of the country would be violating their human rights that guarantee them statehood. This is complete insanity, and a result of slack-jawed regressive liberalism.

Instead what we have to look at is actions and their consequences. A 9 year old girl is not gonna know what sex is, much less be able to consent to it because her brain is far from mature. We also know that paedophilia is likely to result in life-long psychological damage of the child. What about the good? Well, Mohammed presumably got some kind of short-term pleasure from the sex.. So we have a case where the negative consequences of the action dramatically outweigh the good consequences, which makes paedophilia a completely unjustifiable action. There's also no reason to believe that girls matured faster during that time in the Middle East, although retarded Islam apologists love to think so

I see, so Human Rights is not exactly a good appeal as to why Child Brides and Aisha were bad, but because the act of doing so harms the child, as we can see from the effects of child marriages and pedophilia we see today. We can safely assume that the same damage is done in the past and have no reason otherwise to think so.

But what about the Human Rights? Why does it or does it not Transcend culture.