NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a thread that's bound to start some people flaming. Are some cultures, for example, traditional muslim "sharia" based cultures inferior to more modern cultures, like those of Europe, Japan, etc.?
I submit that they are. Modern cultures place a high value on equality regardless of sex, sexual orientation or religious beleif (or lack thereof). Cultures based on sharia assign muslim men dominion over women and non-muslims. They also treat other monotheists as second class citizens at best. In addition, polytheists and atheists are accorded no protection or tolerance. Questions? Comments? Opinions? Ad-hominem attacks?

I would hesitate to name any current specifics … but yes I do believe some cultures can just be inherently better
Though it gets rather confusing … because what are the guidelines we are judging it on?

Obviously things that are held high now may not be so in the future.


I think our basis for evaluation is naturally biased so it is really hard to say ...

I dig what your saying. Its not racist to say that people from a culture, at least in social public exhibit similar features. But what your saying all comes down to I'm better than, its all a matter of perspective.

Tolerance is an inherently weak and wrong theory because let us examine it in action in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands prides itself on being tolerant of gays, muslims, and women. But when the muslims arrived in large numbers, they started treating women and gays poorly. The way muslim men treat their women was incomprehensible to western man. For western man has always been chivalrous towards his women. This false notion that women needed "Liberating" sprang forth largely from the warped and perverted minds of marxist so-called "intellectuals" that decided it would be just grand to turn western woman against western man.

If you "tolerate" and allow in every group that wants in. What do you do when two or more of the groups want the tolerance shown towards their group, but not the other group? Diversity breeds disunity, homogenity breeds unity. Different people have always hated each other, that is when they aren't busy attempting to kill each other.

*shrug* better. culture is so individual even within strict systems like afghanistan under the taliban that its hard to say whats "better". there are good and bad aspects in all cultures, none are perfect.

but there are quite a few that im very glad i dont live in.

Since we all came from the same primordial ooze, why would be any better than another "culture" that's simply are own evolved?

Did you follow that simple sentence?

I just think we all came from the same place. That means that the way "cultures" developed is all about the environment changing the evolution of mankind, therefore, mankind is a byproduct of circumstance, it is a culture of circumstance.

So, the real question we should be asking in this thread is... do circumstances make people - groups, per se - better than one another?

It all depends on what your definition of better is.

The best muslim society is, guess what, muslim culture!

as a capatilast, i bet you are a fan of the west, a commie you say, china/cuba/wherever will be your best

There is no reason in even trying to determine an objective best, nothing works well, everyhting have horrid abuses, we need a new wheel

Some tribal languages have a more concrete meaning than advanced societiy's langauges. Advanced society begins to create abstract words as people want to skip over thoughts faster in a conversation. It seems that the life of advanced society becomes so fast paced that thier is no time for deep thought anymore. We have a pronoun for the word tree, but in tribal language there is only words for a specific tree like gum-tree, root tree, but never just tree. The word represents the object. There are no generalizations as what happens in advanced society. Deeper poetic meaning is created when more concrete words are combined into metaphor. It's not an evolution of man, it's an evolution of conciousness. The tribes participate in thier surroundings, whereas we only observe as if we are looking through a window. We forget that we are in it.

I believe that all man is sacred.

Since we all came from the same primordial ooze, why would be any better than another "culture" that's simply are own evolved?

Did you follow that simple sentence?

I just think we all came from the same place. That means that the way "cultures" developed is all about the environment changing the evolution of mankind, therefore, mankind is a byproduct of circumstance, it is a culture of circumstance.

So, the real question we should be asking in this thread is... do circumstances make people - groups, per se - better than one another?


Genetics make people from group A better than group B. We didn't all "evolve" equally or at the same rate. Science has been proving that for over a century. Just recently with the wave of political correctness "We're all the same! We're all the same!" and the inquisition against those who say otherwise, science has been beaten into line, serving the current sociopolitical fashions.

It all depends on what your definition of better is.

The best muslim society is, guess what, muslim culture!

as a capatilast, i bet you are a fan of the west, a commie you say, china/cuba/wherever will be your best

There is no reason in even trying to determine an objective best, nothing works well, everyhting have horrid abuses, we need a new wheel


not just a new wheel comrade, a new vehicle :p

My definitions of "better"

1 Scientific and social achievements that improve length and quality of life for the population

2 A good balance of individual freedoms, and limits to protect the common good

not just a new wheel comrade, a new vehicle :p

possibly a hovercraft of some sort, that doesnt even need wheels

as a capatilast, i bet you are a fan of the west, a commie you say, china/cuba/wherever will be your best

There is no reason in even trying to determine an objective best, nothing works well, everyhting have horrid abuses, we need a new wheel
This seems like poetry to me. Not because it really makes sense or anything, its just the fact that the top part rhymes and has commas (making it seem like a couplet). That and the commas in the lower statement, when combined with the rather spontaneous (and odd) statement that "we need a new wheel," make it seem like Satan's haiku (after a little to much time with the demon Rum).

Yogurt is a culture.

My definitions of "better"

1 Scientific and social achievements that improve length and quality of life for the population

The length of life experienced by people and their relative good health compared with our medical and urban planning advances have led to 1)overpopulation, 2) mass polution problems and 3) more resiliant and deadly diseases.

2 A good balance of individual freedoms, and limits to protect the common good

Individual freedoms lead to a less secure state. The freedoms you experience in America are what the terrorists use and exploit to attack you. Most religious ideologies believe that our freedoms are too much and that their higher power would disaprove.

possibly a hovercraft of some sort, that doesnt even need wheels


perhaps we should focus less on the technology of this statement and try and educate people more. I wonder, what would be the outcome should militant nations as those in the middle east, in asia, in europe or even as the US spent half as much on education as is spent each year on armament.

No culture is better than another, just different.

Some people might be considered thus better than others within a culture and furthermore in subcultures and in sects of subcultures and also in subsects of the former, but that is all.

In the end we are nothing more than human - sadly all too human.

This seems like poetry to me. Not because it really makes sense or anything, its just the fact that the top part rhymes and has commas (making it seem like a couplet). That and the commas in the lower statement, when combined with the rather spontaneous (and odd) statement that "we need a new wheel," make it seem like Satan's haiku (after a little to much time with the demon Rum).

lol, thanks

Thats really cool that you pointed that out

Well, if you believe in God, I suppose whatever culture that God is part of is the one you think is "best."
If not, then it's probably whichever one makes the max number of people happy. (Or at least content)

I'm not racist or anything, but i define a culture by cultural and technical advances. So i consider some cultures to be better than others.
I don't however judge anyone by their culture.

The length of life experienced by people and their relative good health compared with our medical and urban planning advances have led to 1)overpopulation, 2) mass polution problems and 3) more resiliant and deadly diseases.

Overpopulation isn't a problem in advanced countries. They have lower birth rates. The countries with overpopulation, like India and China, are those that have incorporated modern medicine, but not the modern cultures that spawned it. Pollution is a problem, but one that can be solved. Technology has been getting "greener" since the middle of the twentieth century. Drug resistant diseases are also mainly a product of _improper_ use of modern medicine. People in developing nations often use antibiotics just until the symptoms go away rather than until the pathogen in their system is exterminated. A problem caused by bad education, not modern medicine.


Individual freedoms lead to a less secure state. The freedoms you experience in America are what the terrorists use and exploit to attack you. Most religious ideologies believe that our freedoms are too much and that their higher power would disaprove.


The freedoms we have in America also helped build an economy that could sustain a major attack and not collapse. Religious fundamentalists may feel that our freedoms are excessive, but those freedoms are their protection from other religions, and from government. Balance is important. We guarantee their right to speak, but we protect the rights of others to disagree. That's much better than the alternative of theocracy since no one religion has hard evidence to indicate that they have a monopoly on divine truth.

I'm not racist or anything, but i define a culture by cultural and technical advances. So i consider some cultures to be better than others.
I don't however judge anyone by their culture.


you cannot define something by itself, ie: a culture by cultural advances, that is to say, that it makes a circular reference that goes nowhere.

We must begin by forming some definition of what it means to have cultural advances, and since that would be based on opinion, and not on fact - there is no possible way that any such definition would have any merrit save to the individual who formed it.

Therfore, there cannot be any such thing as a "better" or "worse" culture, only such a thing as different cultures could be discussed in an objective sense. ;)

Well, cultural advances = sosiological advances. A tribe lives in community with some rules ruled by mostly an elder. An culturally advanced nation has a complex ruling system. Which one is better ? Neither, but the second one is certainly culturally more advanced. Eternally evolving culture is part of human nature. Also advances in art,religion,architecture can also be considered cultural advances. Then again is cave painting of an tribe better than say a beautifully drawn painting. Again neither is better, but the painting is product of culturally advanced society.

Now that was bad poetry. Here is solid concrete poetry for an example:

Stay, O Sweet, and do not rise!
The Light that shines comes from thine eyes;
The day breaks not: it is my heart,
Because that you and I must part.
Stay or else my joys will die
And perish in thier infancy.

Thomas Hardy.

certainly evolving culture is the mainstay of human development, my point is that this is quickly becoming a matter and a discussion of perspective. This is because not one of us can say with all certainty that the cultures of other nations, societies, or epochs hasn't developed as much as our own respectively, but that perhaps they have advanced equally and in different (sometimes very different and to anyone unfamiliar disturbing) ways.

So with this in mind, I repeat again, not better nor worse but different.

So with this in mind, I repeat again, not better nor worse but different.

one more time

I agree with you, i shouldn't have said better, as i didn't really mean it. Word advanced or sophisticated would be much more what i meant.
I agree also that some cultures maybe advanced in different ways. I still however believe that some cultures are simply more advanced in their ways than others. That doesn't make them any better however, as they can't be compared in that way.

some cultures are definatly better than others are. I also will not get into specifics for fear of being eaten alive by the radical left on this site. however, let me say , that in general, if you have one society that treats most of its citizens like dirt or pawns, hasnt yet left most stone age thinking behind, does not have the wheel or other such commodities, is primitive , violant, and supports cannibalism, I would say that it is an inferior society to say, one that has human rights, has anvanced science, invented many of the things in the modern age, is religious, saves lives around the world, and leads the people of the free world.

Genetics make people from group A better than group B. We didn't all "evolve" equally or at the same rate. Science has been proving that for over a century. Just recently with the wave of political correctness "We're all the same! We're all the same!" and the inquisition against those who say otherwise, science has been beaten into line, serving the current sociopolitical fashions.

genetics never make people from group A better than people from group B. Genetics however can make people from group A better than people from group B in enviroment C for the task D.

What i'm trying to say here is that one can never say that culture A is better than culture B. Saying that one culture is superior means that you have judged all cultures and that that one culture came out best. This requires criteria to judge cultures with and these normally go back to certain values (examples: equality, human rights). Every culture has some values that are important to the culture and the culture tries to organise itself in such a way that these values are achieved. When you judge a culture you do this using your own values and therefore your own culture is most likely of being the superior one. When someone makes the statement that one culture is superior over the other(s) he makes the terrible mistake of believing that there are universal values that will never change. There just is no absolute system of values which is required to judge cultures unbiased.

One can however say that value A (insert a good definition of the value here) is better achieved in culture B than in culture C because research D(insert decent research here).

some cultures are definatly better than others are. I also will not get into specifics for fear of being eaten alive by the radical left on this site. however, let me say , that in general, if you have one society that treats most of its citizens like dirt or pawns, hasnt yet left most stone age thinking behind, does not have the wheel or other such commodities, is primitive , violant, and supports cannibalism, I would say that it is an inferior society to say, one that has human rights, has anvanced science, invented many of the things in the modern age, is religious, saves lives around the world, and leads the people of the free world.


You wouldnt happen to be George Bush would you?

do you really believe that the US (and you are obviously making reference to it here) is thus superior?

perhaps you should consider other factors, ie - how happy are these "liberated" to have been so lucky as to have their traditions obliterated much like the north american natives, or have we forgotten already about that. Do you truly believe that we are better off now than before? Less happy with more materials is still less happy comrade.

genetics never make people from group A better than people from group B. Genetics however can make people from group A better than people from group B in enviroment C for the task D.

What i'm trying to say here is that one can never say that culture A is better than culture B. Saying that one culture is superior means that you have judged all cultures and that that one culture came out best. This requires criteria to judge cultures with and these normally go back to certain values (examples: equality, human rights). Every culture has some values that are important to the culture and the culture tries to organise itself in such a way that these values are achieved. When you judge a culture you do this using your own values and therefore your own culture is most likely of being the superior one. When someone makes the statement that one culture is superior over the other(s) he makes the terrible mistake of believing that there are universal values that will never change. There just is no absolute system of values which is required to judge cultures unbiased.

One can however say that value A (insert a good definition of the value here) is better achieved in culture B than in culture C because research D(insert decent research here).

Thank you for finding the words, I couldnt agree more.

some cultures are definatly better than others are. I also will not get into specifics for fear of being eaten alive by the radical left on this site. however, let me say , that in general, if you have one society that treats most of its citizens like dirt or pawns, hasnt yet left most stone age thinking behind, does not have the wheel or other such commodities, is primitive , violant, and supports cannibalism, I would say that it is an inferior society to say, one that has human rights, has anvanced science, invented many of the things in the modern age, is religious, saves lives around the world, and leads the people of the free world.

But what if it is better for the people to be oppressed?

And it is also worth noting, since there seems to be a level of antimosity towards people on the left that people on the right think with their head, people on the left think with their heart. ;)

But what if it is better for the people to be oppressed?


LOL

jovial, truly and how!

I hope im not coming off as if i agree with the methodology of all other political leaders, but i was under the impression that we were talking about culture - which should be discussed seperate from state, lest we confuse the two.

chivalrous towards his women. This false notion that women needed "Liberating" sprang forth largely from the warped and perverted minds of marxist so-called "intellectuals" that decided it would be just grand to turn western woman against western man.


Um... actually, [it's a common known fact] women weren't allowed in the business world or respected in careers outside of midwivery until about, oh, I don't know the 17th or 18th century (with the exception of the moderate respect during the 12th -13 th century with guilds).
Only later did women finally get some chance as being teachers or nurses, and not until the end of the 19th century were they even allowed to attend medical school, et al.
Also, women still only make about 73 cents for every dollar a man makes.

"Chivalry" wasn't the concern of women's liberation.

LOL

jovial, truly and how!

I hope im not coming off as if i agree with the methodology of all other political leaders, but i was under the impression that we were talking about culture - which should be discussed seperate from state, lest we confuse the two.

indeed

possibly i should have said,

"Perheps it is better for people to live in an oppressive culture"

Of course some cultures are better than others...we are not equal, no matter how much some people want to believe we can reach some sort of utopia.

And it is also worth noting, since there seems to be a level of antimosity towards people on the left that people on the right think with their head, people on the left think with their heart. ;)

OR

we could throw out old systems like "left" and "right" because these issues are much more complex than 1 or 2

You idiot. Of course they did. They weren't allowed in the business world or respected in careers outside of midwivery until about, oh, I don't know the 1700s (with the exception of moderate respect during the 12th century with guilds).
Only later did women finally get some chance as being teachers or nurses, and not until the end of the 19th century were they even allowed to attend medical school et al.


Yes, and they have it so much better today, men are such today they won't come to the assistance of women being beaten and raped in alleys. Men won't stand up for their women. Women have it so much better today with the divorce rate nearly 60%, the rape rate through the roof. Women have it so much better with popular culture brainwashing them into thinking they need to put out on the first date or the guy won't like them. Most men don't respect sluts.

OR

we could throw out old systems like "left" and "right" because these issues are much more complex than 1 or 2

Touche!!

Every culture has its good and bad sides. I'm sure every culture has a facet that another culture envies. Not any one culture is better than the other. C'mon, even if one culture was ruled by a dictator then that doesn't make them a bad culture. Look at the American culture, we have many corrupt people running our country. So no one culture is better than another. Why can't we jus all get along and not worry about it. :fluffle:

But what if it is better for the people to be oppressed?

Reality check! It's never better to the people to be opressed.
The people will suffer and that is never good thing. Would you be willing live in some dictator's playground or some police state ? I don't think anyone would.

Every culture has its good and bad sides. I'm sure every culture has a facet that another culture envies. Not any one culture is better than the other. C'mon, even if one culture was ruled by a dictator then that doesn't make them a bad culture. Look at the American culture, we have many corrupt people running our country. So no one culture is better than another. Why can't we jus all get along and not worry about it. :fluffle:


I raise my glass to thee!
However, to discuss is what we must to improve, to educate, to learn.
I am sure that there ought not to be any hardships come of this discussion. ;)

Yes, and they have it so much better today, men are such today they won't come to the assistance of women being beaten and raped in alleys. Men won't stand up for their women. Women have it so much better today with the divorce rate nearly 60%, the rape rate through the roof. Women have it so much better with popular culture brainwashing them into thinking they need to put out on the first date or the guy won't like them. Most men don't respect sluts.

1. The first assertion is completly wrong. The only example I can recall is that incident where a women was murdered in front of an apartment of about 42 people. The incident was sick and twised, but wasn't based on her gender. This was a key point for the good samaritan law, or something liek that.

2. I stand up for women, mine or others. I'm sure other people do.

3. Divorce is only so rampant because of secularization and a more open attitude toward divorce. Do you think forced marriage was any better?

4. People are stupid. Men are influenced by mass culture as well, usually making them /assume/ women should put out on the first dates [note: I am in no way defending this idiotic assumption], adding to their homophia, and pushing them to do more risky/dangerous things, as well as leading to steroid use and pointless wasted hours at gyms.

I'm only saying that overall, yes, it is better now. And that in the past, women weren't treated anywhere near as well. I'm also saying that your "phony marxist-intellectuals" had a point in bringing the lack of respect of women to the attention of conservatives.

And um, Mill awsn't anywhere near Marxist.

Reality check! It's never better to the people to be opressed.
The people will suffer and that is never good thing. Would you be willing live in some dictator's playground or some police state ? I don't think anyone would.


I agree, by the very basis of the word - opression is negative, and thus the words negative connotation. Perhaps we should seek out the meaning of this statement though, i do not think that it came across as intended - as i had thus probed before. :confused:

Look at the American culture, we have many corrupt people running our country.
And is America better than other cultures? Do the technological advances and bounty of resources America has make up for corrupt leaders?
Would you rather have a good leader or a culturally advanced country?

Reality check! It's never better to the people to be opressed.
The people will suffer and that is never good thing. Would you be willing live in some dictator's playground or some police state ? I don't think anyone would.

Moussilinis Italy was much more stable and powerful than the small nationstates of democracy it was before. Nazi Germany was increadably powerful and industrious. MUCH better than any modern nation with democracy or a less oppressive society.

Its all about the end goals of a society.

Every culture has its good and bad sides. I'm sure every culture has a facet that another culture envies. Not any one culture is better than the other. C'mon, even if one culture was ruled by a dictator then that doesn't make them a bad culture. Look at the American culture, we have many corrupt people running our country. So no one culture is better than another. Why can't we jus all get along and not worry about it. :fluffle:

Of course some cultures are better than others. Are you telling me that the tribes in Africa killing are as equally cultured as Japan?

And is America better than other cultures? Do the technological advances and bounty of resources America has make up for corrupt leaders?
Would you rather have a good leader or a culturally advanced country?


I would trade both for whatever brought the people happiness, and since at this point i have seen nothing historically work to this end, i am unsure what that might be.

looks like i have to quote myself on this one. Anyone trying to say that one culture is better than another one will face this quote.



genetics never make people from group A better than people from group B. Genetics however can make people from group A better than people from group B in enviroment C for the task D.

What i'm trying to say here is that one can never say that culture A is better than culture B. Saying that one culture is superior means that you have judged all cultures and that that one culture came out best. This requires criteria to judge cultures with and these normally go back to certain values (examples: equality, human rights). Every culture has some values that are important to the culture and the culture tries to organise itself in such a way that these values are achieved. When you judge a culture you do this using your own values and therefore your own culture is most likely of being the superior one. When someone makes the statement that one culture is superior over the other(s) he makes the terrible mistake of believing that there are universal values that will never change. There just is no absolute system of values which is required to judge cultures unbiased.

One can however say that value A (insert a good definition of the value here) is better achieved in culture B than in culture C because research D(insert decent research here).

Of course some cultures are better than others. Are you telling me that the tribes in Africa killing are as equally cultured as Japan?


They are not culturally equal due to a deficiency in brain development resulting in sub-standard intelligence and emotional development when compared to Japense and Europeans.

And it is also worth noting, since there seems to be a level of antimosity towards people on the left that people on the right think with their head, people on the left think with their heart. ;)

That's not at all true. For one, you think with your brain, no matter whether it is intellectually or compasionatly. Also, just because some actions of people on the left look like acts of compassion, doesn't necessarilly mean they aren't also intelligent and beneficial ideas.

For example: The idea of preserving the environment is not, by any means, solely a compassionate idea. It is intelligent, important, and highly necessary, for numerous reasons that really aren't necessary explaining.

By refusing explanations, I leave myself open to ridicule and critique, but frankly, I don't have time to educate people. Do your own damn research.

I agree, by the very basis of the word - opression is negative, and thus the words negative connotation. Perhaps we should seek out the meaning of this statement though, i do not think that it came across as intended - as i had thus probed before. :confused:

I think he could have meant russian, chinese and similar cultures. They have always had strong and opressive leaders. So they can't really live anymore without one, but i think it's sad thing and it shouldn't be so. Seems like to some even Putin isn't enough, there a lot of those who want communist rule back. However the chinese culture is slowly changing maybe we shall see a glorious free China in the future.

They are not culturally equal due to a deficiency in brain development resulting in sub-standard intelligence and emotional development when compared to Japense and Europeans.

eh? I wasn't in anyway taking this to a genetic level.

Please don't miscontrue my statement as an assesment of people's genetic capability or of some racist elitism.

How can you judge a culture, when you already belong to one???

If you were to judge a culture by the way it treats its worst-off citizens and those of other cultures then I suppose Scandinavia would be the "best" culture.

Followed closely by the rest of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The United States, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America would probably be the worst.

Of course I would not consider this to be the only factor in determining the quality of a culture, simply the most important one.

Other factors would be science, art, literature, philosophy, music, cuisine, and how it treats other species and the Earth (but all of these are far less objective, it is impossible to say which culture has the best "art").

I am not trying to say we should all be like Scandinavia, obviously every culture has its advantages and disadvantages.

I am not trying to say we should all be like Scandinavia, obviously every culture has its advantages and disadvantages.

We should all be like Scandanavia

That's not at all true. For one, you think with your brain, no matter whether it is intellectually or compasionatly. Also, just because some actions of people on the left look like acts of compassion, doesn't necessarilly mean they aren't also intelligent and beneficial ideas.

For example: The idea of preserving the environment is not, by any means, solely a compassionate idea. It is intelligent, important, and highly necessary, for numerous reasons that really aren't necessary explaining.

By refusing explanations, I leave myself open to ridicule and critique, but frankly, I don't have time to educate people. Do your own damn research.


And i do not have time to be the recipient of education from the likes of you. If you are so simple as to take this as a literal statement, then you you need to spend more time on social education and less time on the books comrade.

Grow up and take philo-statements as they were meant to be read, not as you would like them to be re-written.

Moussilinis Italy was much more stable and powerful than the small nationstates of democracy it was before. Nazi Germany was increadably powerful and industrious. MUCH better than any modern nation with democracy or a less oppressive society.

Its all about the end goals of a society.

An oppressive society can be much more powerfull, but the people will suffer.
That's what makes an oppressive society bad. Then when the people will suffer they start losing motivation and that leads to ineffectivines on the end.
Then they become very vulnerable to propaganda and they began to plot a revolution. That's how it commonly ends. Even if an oppressive society can survive that. The facts won't change, people will suffer. Do you want to live in such society like that ?

An oppressive society can be much more powerfull, but the people will suffer.
That's what makes an oppressive society bad. Then when the people will suffer they start losing motivation and that leads to ineffectivines on the end.
Then they become very vulnerable to propaganda and they began to plot a revolution. That's how it commonly ends. Even if an oppressive society can survive that. The facts won't change, people will suffer. Do you want to live in such society like that ?

exactly

your goal for culture is to have people be free and equal

the fascists ideal is differant, they depend on the strength of the culture and its society.

I personally dont want to live in any culture

Actually i don't judge cultures by civil rights and certainly not by social equality. It's just that i wouldn't want to live in such a culture, unless i would be the leader. My ideal culture is based on personal freedom, but that doesn't mean that i hate oppressive cultures.

Of course some cultures are better than others. Are you telling me that the tribes in Africa killing are as equally cultured as Japan?


Simply put, Yes. You see you have made the typical european elitest mistake of not looking at the big picture and letting those facets of one culture that you see as being 'Attractive' blind you to the totality of its systems. Quite a few of the facets of the said same japan (up to about 100 years ago) and that of many of the smaller subsections of peoples in the African continent are very similar in terms of the goals and beliefs, holding values such as family, and their ansestors and many gods as being important above all. How these goals were carried out may have differed but that is to be expected because of the environments which bore them, for example taboos and reverances for certain things. Cannablism fo example where you to pay attention in antroplogy class, was far more often than not a way of HONORING the dead, a gesture far more symbolic than for purposes of nutrition, a way carrying the sprit of the dean with you.

In every instance around the world one can see that cultures arise in the struggle to survive and that each is different in the way that allows then to survive in their enviornment, thus saying one is inferior to another is like comparing the development of a fish with that of a reptile. In the end there is no real bench mark other than 'it worked here' and thus to make judgements of superiority is to simply blind yourself to the facets that truely shine in each experience no matter what they may be.


-(The current Alpha representitive of the Nihil Celios parliment... soon to be moved out of office to make room for a new one)

Tolerance is an inherently weak and wrong theory because let us examine it in action in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands prides itself on being tolerant of gays, muslims, and women. But when the muslims arrived in large numbers, they started treating women and gays poorly.

Well.....the basic idea is not to stoop to their level and hopefully they'll come around eventually.

If you are taking refuge in another culture because you own culture is poor and repressive, you are bound to appreciate and respect that culture and it's values. Especially if that culture is tolerant of your own cultural values.

Eventually you will abandon the worst aspects of your old culture and embrace the best aspects of the new culture.

However if the new culture is intolerant of your value system then it is more likely that you will cling on to the old culture in a reactionary way (hence Muslim Fundamentalism in rascist France).

In theory, one culture could be better than another, in practice, I don't know of any cultures that don't have some massive flaws. Americans are obsessed with buying and wealth. Middle-easterners have a terrible level of sexism. Interestingly, I have heard that some African tribes are or at least were very close the the ideals of anarchism in many ways.

I have heard that some African tribes are or at least were very close the the ideals of anarchism in many ways.

Yes and the anarchy of the african kills millions of their own people in their petty tribal wars. Look what it has done for africa, get them perpetually in squaller and poverty! Yes, let us emulate that great system!

The closest thing I can think of about superiority in certain cultures is that a lot of cultures may be corrupt, encourage murder or the like. This begins to create stereotypes of that. That's why most of the mofia is Italian, most murderers or murder victims in Canada are Jamaicans, most Americans are ignorant, you can pay the police off for murder in India and so on. Now, whether this makes a culture superior or inferior depends on which one is yours; simply, yours is ALWAYS the best. Don't even question it, especially when someone else of a different culture brings it up. In fact, at that point, grab a flask of holy water and throw it at them. I bet they'll fizzle up.

they'll come around eventually.



Either that or kill everybody not like them and create anarchy and civil-war.

Yes and the anarchy of the african kills millions of their own people in their petty tribal wars. Look what it has done for africa, get them perpetually in squaller and poverty! Yes, let us emulate that great system!

Actually, I'm not talking about those tribes. There is a huge amount of difference between cultures in Africa. It's a big place.

Actually, I'm not talking about those tribes. There is a huge amount of difference between cultures in Africa. It's a big place.


Yes, I am quite aware of the cultural differences in Africa.

Obviously some cultures are better than others; if they aren't exactly the same, then they aren't equal. However, it's probably politically incorrect to attempt to determine which cultures are better and which are worse. Or at least, to make your conclusions public.

Obviously some cultures are better than others; if they aren't exactly the same, then they aren't equal. However, it's probably politically incorrect to attempt to determine which cultures are better and which are worse. Or at least, to make your conclusions public.


I think we all know which culture is better *Cough Western Culture cough*, and I think we all know when it was at its best *Cough Before Marxist Subversion cough*

In my opinion the basis of how good a civilization is is the happiness of the people. I don't care about their technologically advancements, their wealth, or their sexism. Those have a factor in how happy they are but if women like being mistreated than who cares? Of course, a woman who prefers being mistreated because of their gender is very rare, but if someone does, then I don't see a problem. If starving homeless people in Africa are glad they are almost dead, then whatever. I'm not saying that people should be happy about that type of thing, but my point is that civilizations should be judged on how happy their people are living their lives.

As a professional social scientist, I read this thread with some interest (and more than a little concern!). I've got two points to make.

First, there's a fairly major point that no one on this thread has raised yet. "Cultures" are not homogeneous. There are no clear boundaries as to where one "culture" ends and another begins. There are just people with beliefs and practices they learn from those around them. In every social group (however you want to define it), there are differences between individuals. Most people are fine; some are jerks. All are dealing with whatever circumstances they find themselves in, based on the experiences they've had. (This is why I object to the "we have more advanced technology, so we're a more advanced culture" argument. Sure, I live somewhere where we have cars, TVs, and laser-guided bombs... but I didn't invent them. How can I be "superior" to someone else, just because they don't have 'em?)


Second, I can't believe no one has called Communist Mississippi to task for his neo-nazi white-supremacist BS. Some of the recurring flaws in his reasoning:

1. CULTURE has nothing to do with GENETICS. You acquire language, beliefs, etc. from the people you grow up with; not from your DNA. The division of people into groups based on genetic criteria is called RACE. (Incidentally, real scientists no longer employ the idea of race. You see, they have discovered that there are no such things as racial boundaries. We can choose criteria--skin colour, hair type, eye shape were all popular ones--and divide people up based on these criteria, but it really doesn't tell us anything about their intelligence or their capacity for "culture." We might as well classify people according to height for all it tells us about their "culture" or their capacity to do things.

2. If you DO want to talk biology, diversity in a gene pool STRENGTHENS a species. That means that, if we are really concerned about the species' evolutionary development, we need to start mixing genotypes like mad. Of course, the amount of human biological variation is incredibly small, so there's no need to worry about it, but Commie Miss. needs to get his science straight.

As a professional social scientist, I read this thread with some interest (and more than a little concern!). I've got two points to make.

First, there's a fairly major point that no one on this thread has raised yet. "Cultures" are not homogeneous. There are no clear boundaries as to where one "culture" ends and another begins. There are just people with beliefs and practices they learn from those around them. In every social group (however you want to define it), there are differences between individuals. Most people are fine; some are jerks. All are dealing with whatever circumstances they find themselves in, based on the experiences they've had. (This is why I object to the "we have more advanced technology, so we're a more advanced culture" argument. Sure, I live somewhere where we have cars, TVs, and laser-guided bombs... but I didn't invent them. How can I be "superior" to someone else, just because they don't have 'em?)


Second, I can't believe no one has called Communist Mississippi to task for his neo-nazi white-supremacist BS. Some of the recurring flaws in his reasoning:

1. CULTURE has nothing to do with GENETICS. You acquire language, beliefs, etc. from the people you grow up with; not from your DNA. The division of people into groups based on genetic criteria is called RACE. (Incidentally, real scientists no longer employ the idea of race. You see, they have discovered that there are no such things as racial boundaries. We can choose criteria--skin colour, hair type, eye shape were all popular ones--and divide people up based on these criteria, but it really doesn't tell us anything about their intelligence or their capacity for "culture." We might as well classify people according to height for all it tells us about their "culture" or their capacity to do things.

2. If you DO want to talk biology, diversity in a gene pool STRENGTHENS a species. That means that, if we are really concerned about the species' evolutionary development, we need to start mixing genotypes like mad. Of course, the amount of human biological variation is incredibly small, so there's no need to worry about it, but Commie Miss. needs to get his science straight.


You are a liar and are preaching pseudosciences. What communist party are you a member of? I am no nazi, nothing I have said is offensive or untrue. I speak only the truth, and diversity in a gene pool weakens the species. It gives opportunities for the weakest of all the genes to merge into one super low form of life.

Were did you get your degree... Comrade!

(This is why I object to the "we have more advanced technology, so we're a more advanced culture" argument. Sure, I live somewhere where we have cars, TVs, and laser-guided bombs... but I didn't invent them. How can I be "superior" to someone else, just because they don't have 'em?)




They never will invent them because they lack the capacity to do so. They are mentally weaker because they are genetically weaker. The vast majority of Americans agree that there are real biological differences between different groups of people. Recent surveys reveal the populace believes this. I am glad not all people are as you, willing to sacrifice real science in the name of some false dogma of equality.

Communist Mississippi, I don't know where you got your facts, but you are just plain wrong. Diversity is good. Limiting genetic diversity causes a species to stagnate and stop evolving. Its most extreme form is what we call "inbreeding." But as I said, biology and culture are separate issues.

I apologize for calling you a neo-nazi; I jumped the gun a bit on that one. I was just trying to point out that the ideals of racial purity, inter-racial conflict, and the superiority of western civilization were the hallmarks of Hitler's ideology. We've seen where that leads; there's no need to go down that road again.

We've seen where that leads; there's no need to go down that road again.





Yes, let us bash the western civilization! In the words of this marxist:


http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1002/1002ignatiev.htm


In the September-October issue of Harvard Magazine, Ignatiev (who launched a journal called Race Traitor) writes, "The goal of abolishing the white race is, on its face, so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists."

Dr. Iggy also unveils the hellfire-and-brimstone agenda of his journal - "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed - not 'deconstructed,' but destroyed."




http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1002/1002ignatiev.htm

Communist Mississippi: We're getting further and further off topic here, so I'll just say this: I'm not out to "destroy" anyone or anything. What I am saying is that the category of race has no scientific merit; it's a political tool and nothing more. If you have a rational, well-thought out response, I'd be happy to hear it and to respond to it. If the best you can do is to fish up irrelevant quotations directed at other people and say, "that's you," we're outside the realm of rational debate and into fourth-grade spitballing, and you can count me out.

I think that some cultures are more progressive than others, but better? I don't think so. It's too hard to say, there are too many variables.

Communist Mississippi: We're getting further and further off topic here, so I'll just say this: I'm not out to "destroy" anyone or anything. What I am saying is that the category of race has no scientific merit; it's a political tool and nothing more. If you have a rational, well-thought out response, I'd be happy to hear it and to respond to it. If the best you can do is to fish up irrelevant quotations directed at other people and say, "that's you," we're outside the realm of rational debate and into fourth-grade spitballing, and you can count me out.


I could go through mountains of evidence, Charles Darwin, Arthur De Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Albert Schweitzer, etc, and prove that race is real and race is biological. But you're not willing to listen and you've clearly already made-up your mind. You're towing the line with the egalitarian "race doesn't exist" mantra.

Here's a thread that's bound to start some people flaming. Are some cultures, for example, traditional muslim "sharia" based cultures inferior to more modern cultures, like those of Europe, Japan, etc.?
I submit that they are. Modern cultures place a high value on equality regardless of sex, sexual orientation or religious beleif (or lack thereof). Cultures based on sharia assign muslim men dominion over women and non-muslims. They also treat other monotheists as second class citizens at best. In addition, polytheists and atheists are accorded no protection or tolerance. Questions? Comments? Opinions? Ad-hominem attacks?

Yes, some cultures are better then others.

Plain to see that culture nor social background defines behaviour, does give flavour to how we express ourselves but our internal talk together with being socialized which is not social at all, gives us our importance leading up to petty feeling to action. Same data, same system.

Middle age African togetherness works out exactly the same feelings and thoughts, though more direct and honest as in truthfully, compared with eurominders, modern western techno based know-how seen it all.

You bet there are big differences, speaking straight up is a relief, takes strength but then not having the control over your thoughts, feelings of importance makes you act ego maniac.

Holding in count to ten always somebody watching you makes perfect clown masks all very nice but look again robot men.......

I should be a poet,mmmmmmmwwwwwwoman

Let me bring up what to do with sex for example, many would suggest that Arab would be the more repressive.
You would maybe think that our western open talk walk acts with constant fuck focus is a natural state, not an indulgent socially pressed thought based program for which we usually do not have the energy when aging.
Leads to empty gestures that hurt everybody including your self, your nature.
Natural sex, feelings and whatever are fine no matter what.

We have it seems something in our heads that we call personality as we adopted our situation of our family life that thing took control, maybe formed reason wise. Sick clown tricking disaster. I think we each have to find out who is talking, may the real me arise!


Let me eat apple at 3.20 AM sleepy time,

Good mighty night.

I could go through mountains of evidence, Charles Darwin, Arthur De Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Albert Schweitzer, etc, and prove that race is real and race is biological. But you're not willing to listen and you've clearly already made-up your mind. You're towing the line with the egalitarian "race doesn't exist" mantra.

I see the problem. Mountains of evidence indeed... and all of it from before the second World War. CM, people have learned some things since then. You will have a lot of trouble finding even an introductory-level physical anthropology textbook that doesn't reject the idea of "race". And the Nazi connection resurfaces: de Gobineau was popular with Third Reich scientists.

Race exists...but why should it have any effect on how a person is viewed, employed, or treated in society.

Fucking racists.

I see the problem. Mountains of evidence indeed... and all of it from before the second World War. CM, people have learned some things since then. You will have a lot of trouble finding even an introductory-level physical anthropology textbook that doesn't reject the idea of "race". And the Nazi connection resurfaces: de Gobineau was popular with Third Reich scientists.


The old scientists were real scientists. Before this modern wave of "political correctness" and distortion of facts to make it seem the third world can indeed be raised up. They can never be raised up because we cannot perform massive alterations and enhancements on genetics at this point in time.

Race exists...but why should it have any effect on how a person is viewed, employed, or treated in society.



Because would you rather have a man or woman to carry your heavy bag?

Because just as men and women are different biologically, so to are the different peoples of the world. Each group of people has a different function and a different capability.

Allow me to go get some information from a french intellectual and we will continue this discussion when I post irrefutable anthropological data.

According to Essai sur l'inegalite des races humaines

The following data regarding cranial capacity for skulls, all the openings were carefully filled with cotton except for the foramen magnum and then completely filled up with dried grains of pepper of equal size and shape. Done by a one Dr. Owen in the 19th century. Dr. Morton, and Dr. Carus also worked on this study.


The exact table as follows:



White races:
Avg number of grains:87
Max number of grains:109
Min number of grains: 75




Yellow Races (Malays and Mongols):
Avg number of grains (Malays):83
Avg number of grains (Mongols):81
Max number of grains (Malays):93
Max number of grains (Mongols):89
Min number of grains (Malays):69
Min number of grains (Mongols):64



North American Indians:
Avg number of grains:82
Max number of grains:100
Min number of grains:60



Black Races:
Avg number of grains:78
Max number of grains:94
Min number of grains:65

The old scientists were real scientists. Before this modern wave of "political correctness" and distortion of facts to make it seem the third world can indeed be raised up. They can never be raised up because we cannot perform massive alterations and enhancements on genetics at this point in time.

Two points, then I'm through trying to convince you; you haven't presented any rational refutation of anything here, and it's getting ridiculous.

1. "The old scientists were real scientists"? We are falling off from where we were in the nineteenth century? There goes your whole idea of progress, then, eh?

2. You are advocating "massive alterations and enhancements on genetics"? That's called "eugenics." It's another cornerstone of Nazi ideology, and the one that led to the creation of concentration camps.

Look, BIOLOGY and CULTURE are NOT THE SAME. This is not a new idea; this has now been accepted science for more than forty years. Go to school; maybe read a scientific journal or two. Pull your head out of whatever loony-toon nineteenth-century bubble it's stuck in, and get up to date.

ps: You are once again calling on 19th C. science - de Gobineau, who, as I pointed out, was one of the most important sources for Nazi "scientists." The link between cranial capacity and intelligence has been disproved. Stop quoting ancient proto-Nazis and get an education.

Two points, then I'm through trying to convince you; you haven't presented any rational refutation of anything here, and it's getting ridiculous.

1. "The old scientists were real scientists"? We are falling off from where we were in the nineteenth century? There goes your whole idea of progress, then, eh?

2. You are advocating "massive alterations and enhancements on genetics"? That's called "eugenics." It's another cornerstone of Nazi ideology, and the one that led to the creation of concentration camps.

Look, BIOLOGY and CULTURE are NOT THE SAME. This is not a new idea; this has now been accepted science for more than forty years. Go to school; maybe read a scientific journal or two. Pull your head out of whatever loony-toon nineteenth-century bubble it's stuck in, and get up to date.

In the USSR the scientists actually said communism was scientifically more sound than capitalism. Progress is being sacrificed at the altar of egalitarianism.

Eugenics is the way by which we can improve the quality of our people from the corrupting influences of other genes.

Eugenics is the way by which we can improve the quality of our people from the corrupting influences of other genes.

Okay, now I don't feel bad about calling you a nazi, you nazi.

Okay, now I don't feel bad about calling you a nazi, you nazi.


I'm not a nazi, I'm a populist.

Eugenics is a real science, unlike the junk you're spouting.

Because would you rather have a man or woman to carry your heavy bag?

Because just as men and women are different biologically, so to are the different peoples of the world. Each group of people has a different function and a different capability.

Allow me to go get some information from a french intellectual and we will continue this discussion when I post irrefutable anthropological data.

The difference between races is much less significant then the strength difference between men and women, which doesn't even matter in modern life.

Eugenics is a real science, unlike the junk you're spouting.

It's the precursor to transhumanism and one of the worst products of the human mind.

Eugenics is the way by which we can improve the quality of our people from the corrupting influences of other genes.

I don't think of people as groups, I think of them as individuals. Eugenics is inherently collectivist and thus anti-freedom. I will not submit to the authority of some genetic planner to benefit a group I will not be a part of.

The old scientists were real scientists. Before this modern wave of "political correctness" and distortion of facts to make it seem the third world can indeed be raised up. They can never be raised up because we cannot perform massive alterations and enhancements on genetics at this point in time.

It was once believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean it is true. We gain new knowledge and that often means that old theories are disproven.