Locke

However, my beleif does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate other peoples beleifs. Intolerant religions are exclusivley intolerant. I am intolerant only to intolerant religions e.g. extremists. Regardless, you are still choosing what to be intolerant of, and what to be tolerant of. Once again, by saying "my belief does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate others" you are implying that tolerating many is intrinsically good. To use your words, you are also "exclusively intolerant." You are intolerant to everyone who does not share the same belief you do about tolerance, just as intolerant religions are intolerant towards people who don't share their religious beliefs. Both you and intolerant religions are being intolerant towards people who believe something different because they believe something different. However, you are attempting to assume that intolerance towards intolerance is intrinsically better than another kind of intolerance, yet at the same time you want to say that "tolerance" is not an absolute good. If tolerance is not an absolute good, then your intolerance is just as bad, and just as exclusive towards beliefs that you don't agree with.

You are the one making the color distinction, as evident by your claim about Eminem. Eminem is white, yet he represents that same thug culture that is subscribed to mostly by African-Americans. Actually around 90% of rap records sales are made by white suburban teenagers. I'm not talking about CD sales, I'm talking about attitude and personal presentation.

Oh, it's "good"? What universal standard of morality says that? Last time I checked, an atheist doesn't have a universal standard of morality, so you telling me toleration is good is forcing your beliefs down my throat (the exact opposite of toleration). You're showing yourself to be a hypocrite more and more with every post. I never said it was universal. I said my beleif is not to tolerate religions that don't tolerate others. I never said my beleifs where universal. What your post then says is that you don't tolerate religions that don't have the same belief as you - since it is only your belief that tolerance is good. Therefore, you are intolerant of beliefs that are different than yours. You ONLY tolerate beliefs which are the same as yours about tolerance, hence insane saying it is a useless stance. What does it accomplish to only tolerate beliefs that you agree with? Even intolerant religions tolerate the beliefs they agree with, so how is your intolerance towards intolerance any different IF tolerance is not an absolute good?

The trend that I am seeing, and that insane is trying to point out, is that if someone doesn't believe in an absolute good, how can they say tolerance is an absolute good? Everyone assumes that tolerance is "good," but that is just their personal belief. By forcing someone who dissents, like insane, to agree with your belief, you are being intolerant of his belief that tolerance itself is not intrinsically good.

The problem I have with your reasoning is that it assumes... 1. That parents do not use both methods of punishment. You assume spanking and taking away privileges are mutually exclusive, which by the given examples above, are not. 2. You also assume that children who are at a young age are able to grasp difficult moral and ethical concepts that people much older than them sometimes have trouble grasping. You might notice that spanking children only lasts so long. Why is that? Because spanking is used as a deterrent only when children are too young to be able to clearly reason through ethical dilemmas. When children grow older and more competent, then other forms of parenting develop. To use your dog example, children are spanked only to a certain age usually. Dogs are spanked their entire life. Why? Because dogs will never develop the reason and understanding it takes to teach them "ethics and morality" - they will always be lacking, but children won't.

What exactly do you mean when you say "tolerant" in respect to religions?

I think this debate revolves around whether or not you believe that people can surrender certain rights and liberties that they are born with by doing certain things. If you believe that no one can ever surrender their right to life, no matter how heinous the crime, no amount of logic or reasoning is going to convince you otherwise and you will always view capital punishment as some sort of "revenge" or "blood lust." If, however, you believe that certain acts of injustice can cause you to forfeit your right to life then capital punishment is not about revenge, but about justice. The first group of people will always view "justice" as a euphemism for "revenge" and the second group will always wonder why the former cannot understand the difference between "justice" and "revenge." Logic and reason will do nothing in this debate because it is pure belief about what constitutes one's right to life.

You are the one making the color distinction, as evident by your claim about Eminem. Eminem is white, yet he represents that same thug culture that is subscribed to mostly by African-Americans. That is my exact point. White people who act like thugs are looked as in the same group as black people who act like thugs because it is how the person presents himself that is noticed, not the skin color. I understand what you're saying, but I think it's quite irrelevant to Chris' point about being aggressive. Aggression in a logical debate does nothing. I disagree - and the reason being so is that black people who do not act like thugs, are not treated like thugs as evident by the amount of respectable looking and acting black people that have been successful. You can say it's a "white" look but then also need to explain why it is a look adopted throughout cultures. I disagree with this as well. Chav's are looked down upon because of the attitude they have and the way they act. The fact is that society as a whole rejects people who act like thugs, whether it is the "gangster" in America that is mostly African-American, or if it is the "chav" in Europe. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the appearance and attitude of the thug. --- You might be able to make the claim that it is a "white" look that is accepted. Even if you do so successfully, the "racism" falls on you, not the whites. It doesn't matter who came up with the look, what is "respectable" in society is just that, and it doesn't matter WHO is the one dressing respectable. Why do you think civil rights activists like Al Sharpton who believe in "embedded" and "institutional" don't dress like thugs? It is because no one likes the appearance of a thug. If he dresses respectable, which IS a look that is all across the world in multiple races, then he is thought of as respectable because it is his appearance NOT his skin color that matters.

I don't think you're making it up, but do you have a source for the story? I'm interested in reading about that.

It's laughable that I find concern that the majority of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect? You aren't showing the flaw in my argument, you just keep saying it is laughable. No it's not. The point still is irrelevant because you are making a massive mistake with your point, and that is leaving out context. It is by no fault of Locke of the culture and time period he lived in, and the point you are trying to make about the choice of my screen name, is, once again, nothing but grabbing for staws. As said before, you seem excited to expand upon this point that has nothing to do with countering my argument, yet you continue to avoid actually tackling the meat of my argument. They don't have to act or dress like a gangster, just like a white person does not have to. "Thug" is an appearance. Once again, you fail to respond to my actual points, like the point I made about "chavs" not being black but still be thought of in the same. I'm also too lazy to respond to people that rehash what someone said earlier in the thread, so either say something new or give an answer to one of our statements from earlier.

I think there is definitely a difference in hitting your kid when you get mad, and setting it as a punishment. As in, your child knows that if it does this, it will get three spanks, and when it happens, the spanks are given in a very controlled and serious manner to show it is not just a lash of emotion, but it is the consequence of wrong actions.

California is looking to pass a bill that would ban parents from spanking children. The belief is that any physical pain inflicted on the child is unnecessary, and therefore child abuse. What do you all think?

1. Dressing and acting respectable has nothing to do with race. Respond to the point that "chavs" are not just black people in the UK, yet they have the same bad rep because they look like thugs. Respond to the point why people of all races all over the country have a universal respectable way of dressing, no matter where they are. It is not a "white" thing to dress respectable, and you are being racist by suggesting so. 2. I admire Locke's philosophies. Especially in a culture where racism was not looked down upon, it is ridiculous and close minded to dismiss everything about a person because of a few moral flaws. Does it speak volumes about people who admire Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for what he did for civil rights, even though he was an adulterer? Your logical is completely irrational, and since you fail to respond directly my points and the examples, it is clear you are grasping for straws. I am not the only one who sees the problem of the African-American culture as having to do with how people present themselves, and how they are taught to present themselves. This is an interesting book about the same subject written by Juan Williams - he is black by the way. Bill Cosby also Bill Cosby addressed this same problem. Cosby is known as being a great champion of civil rights through his positive portrayal of African-Americans through his comedy and his multiple television shows. His theories were that African-Americans need not only to be seen as respectable people, but also that their race should not be an issue that is talked about on the show - because people would see a respectable African-American family on TV like it was a "normal thing." The "gangster" argument is not weak. When white people come in dressed like gangsters for an interview, the interviewer does not look highly on that. It's not because he's white, its because he is presenting himself in a way that is not respectable. Once again, you fail to address my point. Why is it that in high schools groups of "wiggers" (white people dressed like thugs) are treated in the same negative way as black people dressed like thugs? It is because it is how people present themselves that draws attention to them, not their color.

Lmao, good point there. However, I betcha he admires Locke as a philosopher, not a slave trader. No. Not a good point. Chris, you spent time responding to arguments much weaker than mine, and instead, you make an irrelevant claim about my user name. How about a logical, and intelligent response towards the points I made?

I never said they do, that is just how they work their. It is how they found it to work. You need to give me logical reasoning why there is something fundamental and transcultural that would make treating the addition of a spouse to the family just like any other family member, something that is not chosen out of personal desire by the child a barbaric lack of freedoms WHILE also explaining why not letting people choose their own families to grow up with is NOT barbaric.

I never said "white" - that your word, actually. So don't try and make me sound like a racist by doing that. I specifically referenced that rap artists and NBA stars act like thugs - white thugs exist as well, but white role models are more often than not, thug-like. My point is that this form of racism has nothing to do with color, it has to do with how people present themselves. When you dress like a thug and your role models sing about killing b*tches and h*es, guess what reputation you're giving off? That is true whether or not you are white or black. Example? The name "wigger" exists because of a "thug style." "Wiggers" get the same sort of treatment that African-American thugs do. The reason being, this form of attitude is not about race, but about how people present themselves, and African-American role models teach African-Americans to present themselves like thugs. It is not race that is the problem, it is the self-presentation that is taught by famous thugs like rap artists. No. I'm saying that African-Americans don't generally look up to other role models. But you can tell when they do...because they don't look and act like thugs. And guess what - people don't assume bad things about people who walk into a store looking respectable even if they are black! It's the thug-like appearance that is the cause. And no, I don't blame the majority of African-Americans for it. I blame their role models for teaching them to act like thugs. You keep saying it's "white" but it's not. It's respectable. Look around the world. "Chavs" dress like thugs and are looked down on. Everywhere in the world it is those who dress and act respectable that are given respect and not given a bad stereotype. Is it a coincidence that in my high school I went to, the Hispanics who dressed like thugs were looked down on, but the Middle Eastern and Oriental kids who dressed respectable weren't? To say that what people view as respectable is a "white" look is ignoring the way people dress and act all over the world. Just look at how the people all over the world in politics dress. "Respectable" is the same everywhere. Once again, it is not race, it is personal presentation.

When people talk about "institutionalized" racism, they forget who could actually be to blame about that. The role models for African-Americans are rap artists and NBA stars, who portray themselves proudly as thugs. Those are the people teaching African-Americans to act and present themselves in the manner that causes institutionalized racism. They should be the ones to blame, not whites because their ancestors kept slaves.

And to reduce our dependency on evil dictators.

This entire argument is from your cultural perspective and I feel as though you've ignored the insight I've given to other cultures. For your culture, a spouse is different from the family you're born with because you choose. The point I'm trying to make is that in cultures who adopt the tradition of arranged marriage, this is not the case. A spouse is merely an extension of the family, it is selected by the parents (the head of the family) in order to mutually assure the success of the family. Our culture immerses itself in the idea of a spouse being someone we are in love with and will fit certain needs because our definition of a spouse is different. In cultures who have the tradition of arranged marriage, a spouse is not the same thing at all. You love your parents because they are your parents, not because you sought them out and chose them. The same attitude is directed towards a spouse in these situations. The problem is that you want to separate the idea of the family you are born with and how you manage to love them, and a spouse, because your culture chooses to do that. If it is the belief that homosexuality should be condemned and made criminal, then that is a different issue entirely. You have to remember that in arranged marriages, people aren't expected to have an erotic love towards each other, it's a love that comes from being in a relationship that assures the mutual success of two families. It's not about starting a new life with someone, it's about how best to continue the life that is there with the families that are present. The entire definition of marriage is different. Marriage is merely a tool to keep families, and thus societies, thriving, it is not the same thing marriage is in your culture. A very good point about the Caste system. You're also right that just because something ensures a society works doesn't mean it's right (although Machiavelli makes a good argument for just that), however, that still doesn't offer me any logical reasoning as to why arranged marriage should be deemed barbaric. Maybe I missed something in that last paragraph.

Besides reiterating the points that both Astralinre and insane made, let me explain this to you. If you are saying that arranged marriage is barbaric in your culture, then I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. However, that's not the issue, because arranged marriage is not part of your culture. Therefore, to reason that arranged marriage is barbaric you have to either logically show that arranged marriage is barbaric in a culture that has it OR you have to logically show that arranged marriage is barbaric in a way that is transcultural, or universal. Obviously it is your point of view that arrange marriage is barbaric, we all understand that. But since you are not in that culture, you need to show logical reasons why arranged marriage is barbaric in a transcultural sense. You bring up the examples of how "if another culture condones murder it doesn't make it right just because of its their culture." This is exactly the point I'm trying to make about giving logical transcultural reasoning. Speaking from a perspective of universal humanity, I could reason that no one has the right to take the life of another human. My reasoning is consistent with all of my beliefs regarding human life AND it is from a transcultural perspective, that is, no matter the culture, the belief remains the same. In this example, however, you are falling short of your burden of proof. If you believe that arranged marriage is barbaric, in an absolute and transcultural way, you must first give reasons that extend beyond a cultural perspective. The example you gave is the limitation of freedoms, however, this makes your views inconsistent because you are not addressing the point that marriage for those cultures is much like your culture's view of family. You don't choose your family, and a spouse is the same in those countries. So then explain why choosing your spouse should be a universal or transcultural freedom AND why choosing your family isn't IIF a spouse is considered to be in the same category of family as your parents and siblings. Lastly, I want to address the point that you keep reiterating that this is just your opinion. Of course it is. You make this statement like your opinion cannot be challenged just because its your opinion, yet at the same time you challenge us to give logical reasons why you're wrong. When we give you logic, you just ignore it and say "it's just my opinion." That seems to be an illogical response.

That's what we did with Afghanistan, but then we got pulled into Iraq, or rather, pulled ourselves into Iraq. And now we're facing crisis with Iran. I swear it will never stop, it's just one big chain of reactions. That's exactly my point. We retaliated against the Taliban to assure safety. What we did in Iraq is not related to the Taliban, and interfering was a mistake just like it would be a mistake to interfere in Darfur. They have not attacked us.

Clinton should have retaliated when we were attacked under his Administration, which he did not. Bush retaliated towards the Taliban when we were attacked and have thus assured us safety. Clinton let terrorists attack us without any retaliation.. You were saying earlier we shouldn't attack them as well, but now your criticizing someone else for not doing so? Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. We should not attack just because wrong doing is happening in the country if it is not affecting us. An attack in retaliation or defense is acceptable, but only to slaughter the enemy.

Clinton should have retaliated when we were attacked under his Administration, which he did not. Bush retaliated towards the Taliban when we were attacked and have thus assured us safety. Clinton let terrorists attack us without any retaliation..

9/11 is the result of having a weak President like Clinton who does not respond properly when attacked by terrorists, and does not take the proper measurements to ensure the safety of the United States until it's too late.

But it has to be about your culture as well in order to make your view consistent. For people who support arranged marriage, marriage is just another part of family that you don't choose, it is a freedom that is given up for the betterment of society. Without being able to give reason that one freedom is more important than another (choosing your family over choosing your spouse) your views are inconsistent with themselves. I honestly don't understand the point of this paragraph. I'm not interested in which countries are rich or poor, nor am I interested in whether or not the countries have divorce. My point was that the definitions of marriage, and the definitions of family, are different in different cultures. For you, you are willing to give the freedom to leave your family and pick a new one, and that is not barbaric. But you people who are willing to give up their freedom to choose a spouse are barbaric? There is no reason for this unless you define marriage in a way that refers to pursuing a romantic and personal interest in marriage, and that is NOT what marriage is. It's not a matter of have a different perspective, its a matter of it being a different thing completely. For their cultures, your spouse is just like your parents, they are not chosen, it just an addition to your family that you love because it is your family. If you view marriage as an idea that is separate from the idea of your first nuclear family, then of course it seems barbaric. But if you view marriage as something that is just like not being able to choose your family, why would it be barbaric? There is absolutely no reason that you have shown that would convince me that one freedom is barbaric to give up, and one isn't. It's just different.