NationStates Jolt Archive

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1382073.aspx

BABAKOT, Pakistan – In a tangle of bushes and trees outside a remote village in southwest Pakistan, six close male relatives of three teenage girls dug a 4-foot wide by 6-foot deep ditch, on a sweltering night in mid-July, and allegedly buried the girls alive.

The girls' crime: they dared to defy the will of their fathers and the customs of their tribe and choose their own husbands. The mother of one of the girls and the aunt of another were shot and killed while begging for the girls’ lives, according to local media reports.


This just sickens me. I want to go to Pakistan, find these men, and rip their fucking heads off in front of the entire village.

However, barring divine intervention, that would end up getting me killed.

Anyone got better ideas? Here's one: womens' shelter bunkers. Similar to Western womens' shelters, only built to withstand assault by an angry village. I'm thinking concrete walls, barbed wire, machine guns, and the nearest military base on speed-dial.

Also, Pakistan needs to enforce its own laws. Tribal leaders not cooperating? Send in the military. Occupy the damn region. Do whatever it takes.

Some would suggest that these... monsters... suffer the same fate as their victims. I think they should suffer the exact opposite - never buried. After shooting them, their remains should be incinerated, and the ashes thrown away.

Why can't people just get along? :(

Oh-ho-ho... *evil grin*

I just thought of a far better punishment.

Hand them over to Snoweh.

Oh-ho-ho... *evil grin*

I just thought of a far better punishment.

Hand them over to Snoweh.

I'm sure that use of Snoweh counts as an act of war.

Pakistan can't enforce it's own laws. Even assuming it's armed forces are willing to enforce them and the public was willing to allow it, I doubt they'd be a match for those villagers.

I think a much easier and fun solution would be to create and release a retrovirus in the area that rewrites the genetic code of women with a narrow band of regional DNA traits to develop superhuman strength and razor-sharp claws. That would certainly change the tone of conversation, wouldn't it? :D

i recall right armed forces are having a hard rime in the area as is

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1382073.aspx



This just sickens me. I want to go to Pakistan, find these men, and rip their fucking heads off in front of the entire village.

However, barring divine intervention, that would end up getting me killed.

Anyone got better ideas? Here's one: womens' shelter bunkers. Similar to Western womens' shelters, only built to withstand assault by an angry village. I'm thinking concrete walls, barbed wire, machine guns, and the nearest military base on speed-dial.

Also, Pakistan needs to enforce its own laws. Tribal leaders not cooperating? Send in the military. Occupy the damn region. Do whatever it takes.

Some would suggest that these... monsters... suffer the same fate as their victims. I think they should suffer the exact opposite - never buried. After shooting them, their remains should be incinerated, and the ashes thrown away.

It does tend make one think of violent and massive retribution allright....However it will one day dissappear into history where it belongs, and good poxy riddance to it.

Pakistan can't enforce it's own laws. Even assuming it's armed forces are willing to enforce them and the public was willing to allow it, I doubt they'd be a match for those villagers.

I think a much easier and fun solution would be to create and release a retrovirus in the area that rewrites the genetic code of women with a narrow band of regional DNA traits to develop superhuman strength and razor-sharp claws. That would certainly change the tone of conversation, wouldn't it? :D

That would be entertaining.

That would be entertaining.
Be careful what you wish for. :tongue:

I agree that some day this will fade into history and people will be ashamed of their forebears when they learn about it.

Until then, I am actually a big fan of the idea of an underground railroad to get women and girls out of these countries where these ridiculous and savage traditions persist. But in a world where many other countries would just callously repatriate them... I wish the UN would just create a kind of refugee status for women and children fleeing countries where this sort of thing happens and the governments can't or won't crack down on it.

It's times like this that make me wonder whether we should have kept these places as colonies for a while longer and imposed our values on them from above through years of foreign-driven economic, educational, and social development.

Pakistan is still a clusterfuck even with Pervy Musharraf stepping down from the picture. This is just another symptom of that clusterfuck.

I'm just surprised nobody has tried to use this shit as an example for yet another Ebil Mozlem rant. Because like Reality Television Shows, so many people easily buy into that crap.

that will learn them for being whores

personally I'm more freaked out by acid attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attack)

Under the Qisas law of Pakistan, the perpetrator must suffer the same fate as the victim, and may be punished by having drops of acid placed in their eyes.

I think a much easier and fun solution would be to create and release a retrovirus in the area that rewrites the genetic code of women with a narrow band of regional DNA traits to develop superhuman strength and razor-sharp claws. That would certainly change the tone of conversation, wouldn't it? :D

furry.

Pakistan is still a clusterfuck even with Pervy Musharraf stepping down from the picture.

yeah its just Pakistan isn't it? :rolleyes:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

It's times like this that make me wonder whether we should have kept these places as colonies for a while longer and imposed our values on them from above through years of foreign-driven economic, educational, and social development.

It's also a pity that 90% of them didn't die of disease and smallpox like in North America. *nod*

yeah, I'm being sarcastic

The thread title is misleading: a real mans penis isn't threatened by females thinking for themselves, or (shock) making their own decisions.

The girls’ decision to elope came after their male relatives and tribal elders had refused them permission to marry the boys of their choice because they were from another tribe.

So what else can you expect from inbreds?



Anyone got better ideas? Here's one: womens' shelter bunkers. Similar to Western womens' shelters, only built to withstand assault by an angry village. I'm thinking concrete walls, barbed wire, machine guns, and the nearest military base on speed-dial.
Don't forget Pakistan is a nuclear power.

http://www.freewebs.com/vault_10/bunker.png

I agree that some day this will fade into history and people will be ashamed of their forebears when they learn about it.

Until then, I am actually a big fan of the idea of an underground railroad to get women and girls out of these countries where these ridiculous and savage traditions persist. But in a world where many other countries would just callously repatriate them... I wish the UN would just create a kind of refugee status for women and children fleeing countries where this sort of thing happens and the governments can't or won't crack down on it.

Well... That's what the existing refugee convention is for, isn't it?

Also, as I've said in the Bitching thread before, this is the worst part really:
"This action was carried out according to tribal traditions," said Israrullah Zehri, a senator representing Balochistan in the upper house of Pakistan’s parliament in the capital Islamabad. "These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," he said.

Also, as I've said in the Bitching thread before, this is the worst part really:

Traditions shmaditions.

Maybe if we imported Fem Nazis we could solve two problems at once?

Well... That's what the existing refugee convention is for, isn't it?
I meant that I don't think the current definition of "refugee" applies to people in circumstances such as this. I think it should.

I think a much easier and fun solution would be to create and release a retrovirus in the area that rewrites the genetic code of women with a narrow band of regional DNA traits to develop A penis.

A penis.
http://forum.broke-off.com/uploads/post-4-1062619417.gif

A penis.

http://forum.broke-off.com/uploads/post-4-1062619417.gif

Brings a whole new meaning to "It's a trap!!"

Another solution:

Find the boyfriends. Send them to the School of the Americas. Then send them home.

The thread title is misleading: a real mans penis isn't threatened by females thinking for themselves, or (shock) making their own decisions.

They are if those thoughts include slicing the penis off, and if those decisions are to use the kitchen knife to do it! :)

There's exactly one solution to this: education.

Set up secular schools in every village. Require attendance from age six to age 16, and teach the kids basic literacy and numeracy, social interaction, a broader cultural perspective, and once they reach about 14, sex ed.

This is the only way to break an entrenched and diseased culture such as the one in tribal Pakistan.

There's exactly one solution to this: education.

Set up secular schools in every village. Require attendance from age six to age 16, and teach the kids basic literacy and numeracy, social interaction, a broader cultural perspective, and once they reach about 14, sex ed.

This is the only way to break an entrenched and diseased culture such as the one in tribal Pakistan.

Just be sure the education system isn't either trying to homogenize them or serve as a castoff point for a bunch of degenerates "working" as teachers. Plenty of natives and aborigines have gone through the universal horror story of forced assimilation and abuse.

There's exactly one solution to this: education.

Set up secular schools in every village. Require attendance from age six to age 16, and teach the kids basic literacy and numeracy, social interaction, a broader cultural perspective, and once they reach about 14, sex ed.

This is the only way to break an entrenched and diseased culture such as the one in tribal Pakistan.

Not particularly. You have to break the influence of the parents as well. This means forcible separation from an age much earlier than six, when they already have the beginnings of indoctrination.

And it will have to be total separation. No contact with the parents from age four until the age of early adulthood. However, the parents, are likely to revolt over this. And comparisons to the cultural extermination of aborigines will be valid.

Unfortunate, but the only way to really solve the issue is either to ensure that they are no longer capable of reproducing and spreading their ideas, which means sterilization and quarantines, or extermination.

The ends are there, but the means, those that will work, are not for the squeamish.

The ends are there, but the means, those that will work, are not for the squeamish.

As brutal as that is...it would probably work. I guess the question is whether or not people would be willing to stomach it, but if you ask me anyone who teaches their children it's okay to beat women and kill them in the name of "honor" neither deserves children nor the privilege of raising them to be adults. Perhaps complete separation is a little harsh, but perhaps the system of reeducation could be extended to adults as well. I think we'd be surprised to see the effects of a comprehensive, Western adult education program combined with systematic elimination and replacement of extremists at the mosques and the construction of new theological schools to educate a new generation of moderate religious leaders.

Not particularly. You have to break the influence of the parents as well. This means forcible separation from an age much earlier than six, when they already have the beginnings of indoctrination.
I sense a supply of expendable, yet high quality cannon fodder right here.


However, the parents, are likely to revolt over this.
Not a problem as we can silence them with: see above.


Unfortunate, but the only way to really solve the issue is either to ensure that they are no longer capable of reproducing and spreading their ideas, which means sterilization and quarantines, or extermination.
It's not like anyone needs their ideas. We in the West are pretty set on ours, and their children: see above.

Be careful what you wish for. :tongue:

I agree that some day this will fade into history and people will be ashamed of their forebears when they learn about it.

Until then, I am actually a big fan of the idea of an underground railroad to get women and girls out of these countries where these ridiculous and savage traditions persist. But in a world where many other countries would just callously repatriate them... I wish the UN would just create a kind of refugee status for women and children fleeing countries where this sort of thing happens and the governments can't or won't crack down on it.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has this (http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3f696bcc4.pdf) to say about sexual and gender based violence.

In many western nations, Convention Refugee (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm) status has been intrepreted to include those who have been subject to sexual or gender based violence. Canada's definition of refugees has been expanded to included sexually-based persecution, even by non-state actors, if there is evidence that the refugee claimaint's nation of origin is unwilling or unable to protect him or her.

The problem is helping them get the fuck out of there in the first place.

Be careful what you wish for. :tongue:

I agree that some day this will fade into history and people will be ashamed of their forebears when they learn about it.

Until then, I am actually a big fan of the idea of an underground railroad to get women and girls out of these countries where these ridiculous and savage traditions persist. But in a world where many other countries would just callously repatriate them... I wish the UN would just create a kind of refugee status for women and children fleeing countries where this sort of thing happens and the governments can't or won't crack down on it.

The underground railroad idea has merit, but if it were government regulated it would be percieved by locals as outside foreign interference, leading to more sympathy and recruitment for terrorist groups. If it were not regulated, then self-serving scum would smuggle women and children out only to sell them as cheap labor or sex slaves in other countries.

One solution might be to cut foreign aid to such countries until their governments agree to crack down on this. Those who won't act in the name of justice may act in the name of money.

http://www.freewebs.com/vault_10/bunker.png

Tell me that's not real. It's perfect, almost as if it were inspired by an old Warner Bros. cartoon.

Not particularly. You have to break the influence of the parents as well. This means forcible separation from an age much earlier than six, when they already have the beginnings of indoctrination.

And it will have to be total separation. No contact with the parents from age four until the age of early adulthood. However, the parents, are likely to revolt over this. And comparisons to the cultural extermination of aborigines will be valid.

Unfortunate, but the only way to really solve the issue is either to ensure that they are no longer capable of reproducing and spreading their ideas, which means sterilization and quarantines, or extermination.

The ends are there, but the means, those that will work, are not for the squeamish.

As brutal as that is...it would probably work. I guess the question is whether or not people would be willing to stomach it, but if you ask me anyone who teaches their children it's okay to beat women and kill them in the name of "honor" neither deserves children nor the privilege of raising them to be adults. Perhaps complete separation is a little harsh, but perhaps the system of reeducation could be extended to adults as well. I think we'd be surprised to see the effects of a comprehensive, Western adult education program combined with systematic elimination and replacement of extremists at the mosques and the construction of new theological schools to educate a new generation of moderate religious leaders.
Yes, indeed, the easiest way to solve a problem caused by people is to destroy the people. If families are the problem, wipe out the families. If culture is the problem, eliminate the culture. Use force for maximum efficiency.

Unfortunately, I find such tactics to be every bit as heinous and intolerable as the honor killings that the OP talks about. So I guess, I'd have to destroy you guys, too. After all, we can't have such high-handed, trigger-happy types as you running around loose, now can we? After all, you have the potential to cause problems, too. Better to nip you in the bud before you get any more ideas.

Now we have illustrated the fundamental problem, and weakness, of colonialism.

Yes, indeed, the easiest way to solve a problem caused by people is to destroy the people. If families are the problem, wipe out the families. If culture is the problem, eliminate the culture. Use force for maximum efficiency.

Unfortunately, I find such tactics to be every bit as heinous and intolerable as the honor killings that the OP talks about. So I guess, I'd have to destroy you guys, too. After all, we can't have such high-handed, trigger-happy types as you running around loose, now can we? After all, you have the potential to cause problems, too. Better to nip you in the bud before you get any more ideas.

It's the ghost of native assimilations past.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission has this (http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3f696bcc4.pdf) to say about sexual and gender based violence.

In many western nations, Convention Refugee (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm) status has been intrepreted to include those who have been subject to sexual or gender based violence. Canada's definition of refugees has been expanded to included sexually-based persecution, even by non-state actors, if there is evidence that the refugee claimaint's nation of origin is unwilling or unable to protect him or her.

The problem is helping them get the fuck out of there in the first place.
This is good to know, and thanks for the information. It's a lot of reading. I'll have to devote some time to studying it.

The underground railroad idea has merit, but if it were government regulated it would be percieved by locals as outside foreign interference, leading to more sympathy and recruitment for terrorist groups. If it were not regulated, then self-serving scum would smuggle women and children out only to sell them as cheap labor or sex slaves in other countries.

One solution might be to cut foreign aid to such countries until their governments agree to crack down on this. Those who won't act in the name of justice may act in the name of money.
Well, the underground railroad that moved slaves out of the southern US before the Civil War was not government regulated, nor were the networks that moved Jews out of Nazi dominated areas. The problem is getting other governments to recognize the refugee status of people moved out of one country and into another...I'll call it extra-legally.

"Coyotes"/human traffickers are definitely a problem, but with enough effort I think the risk could be reduced, at least to the point where it's nor worse than staying in the conditions at home.

Yes, indeed, the easiest way to solve a problem caused by people is to destroy the people. If families are the problem, wipe out the families. If culture is the problem, eliminate the culture. Use force for maximum efficiency.

Unfortunately, I find such tactics to be every bit as heinous and intolerable as the honor killings that the OP talks about. So I guess, I'd have to destroy you guys, too. After all, we can't have such high-handed, trigger-happy types as you running around loose, now can we? After all, you have the potential to cause problems, too. Better to nip you in the bud before you get any more ideas.

Now we have illustrated the fundamental problem, and weakness, of colonialism.

While I also find the suggestions you were responding to morally repellant in their brutality, I hope your comment about "collonialism" is not the start of an argument about how we have to tollerate their cultural values. It isn't racism, discrimination, colloniallism, or any other of those God damn isms to beleive in a certain minimum standard of human rights, and to call an atrocity and atrocity. To be honest, your comment about collonialism seems perhaps a tad strawmanish.

This is good to know, and thanks for the information. It's a lot of reading. I'll have to devote some time to studying it.


Well, the underground railroad that moved slaves out of the southern US before the Civil War was not government regulated, nor were the networks that moved Jews out of Nazi dominated areas. The problem is getting other governments to recognize the refugee status of people moved out of one country and into another...I'll call it extra-legally.

"Coyotes"/human traffickers are definitely a problem, but with enough effort I think the risk could be reduced, at least to the point where it's nor worse than staying in the conditions at home.

If you could get it to work I would whole-heartedly aprove. Frankly the issue of illegal imigration is the last one to concern ourselves with here. If lives and human rights are in danger, other issues need to take a back seat. The law should be subservient to human decency, not the other way around.

While I also find the suggestions you were responding to morally repellant in their brutality, I hope your comment about "collonialism" is not the start of an argument about how we have to tollerate their cultural values. It isn't racism, discrimination, colloniallism, or any other of those God damn isms to beleive in a certain minimum standard of human rights, and to call an atrocity and atrocity. To be honest, your comment about collonialism seems perhaps a tad strawmanish.
I wasn't accusing anyone of advocating colonialism. I was just pointing out that those particular suggestions are colonialist in nature AND that my response to them showed the problem of such an attitude -- that it creates enemies.

I am no "bleeding-heart multiculturalist." I am a strong believer that, when in Rome, one should do as the Romans do, so I have very little patience for the sorts of people who move to, say, the UK and then bitch and whine because none of their new neighbors live the way their old neighbors in the old country did. Fuck that, they're not in the old country anymore.

But being an American, I am acutely aware of the considerable evils that come from thinking you can move into someone else's homeland and start "fixing" things (essentially, moving into Rome and telling the Romans how to live), and by "fixing" I mean make the natives be like you. Especially the part about taking children from their families and other forms of forced assimilation to a foreign and invading culture. Trust me, and I'm confident Neesika could back me up on this, such assimilation doesn't really take, because the kids you kidnap and "whitey-fy" are not going to be fooled about what you did to them. They won't forget, and they won't thank you, either.

No, I say it's better to just help those who truly don't want to live in those old ways, go somewhere else, and take their education, their wealth, their earning ability, etc., with them. Let the slow drain of intelligent and competent people out of an oppressive society slowly bleed it to death.

If you could get it to work I would whole-heartedly aprove. Frankly the issue of illegal imigration is the last one to concern ourselves with here. If lives and human rights are in danger, other issues need to take a back seat. The law should be subservient to human decency, not the other way around.
I agree completely, but it would be hard to take if private citizens put their lives on the line (as they would be doing) to help these women and children escape, only to see the government of some country along the way intercept and return them, as Switzerland did with Jews trying to escape Germany.

I wasn't accusing anyone of advocating colonialism. I was just pointing out that those particular suggestions are colonialist in nature AND that my response to them showed the problem of such an attitude -- that it creates enemies.

I am no "bleeding-heart multiculturalist." I am a strong believer that, when in Rome, one should do as the Romans do, so I have very little patience for the sorts of people who move to, say, the UK and then bitch and whine because none of their new neighbors live the way their old neighbors in the old country did. Fuck that, they're not in the old country anymore.

But being an American, I am acutely aware of the considerable evils that come from thinking you can move into someone else's homeland and start "fixing" things (essentially, moving into Rome and telling the Romans how to live), and by "fixing" I mean make the natives be like you. Especially the part about taking children from their families and other forms of forced assimilation to a foreign and invading culture. Trust me, and I'm confident Neesika could back me up on this, such assimilation doesn't really take, because the kids you kidnap and "whitey-fy" are not going to be fooled about what you did to them. They won't forget, and they won't thank you, either.

No, I say it's better to just help those who truly don't want to live in those old ways, go somewhere else, and take their education, their wealth, their earning ability, etc., with them. Let the slow drain of intelligent and competent people out of an oppressive society slowly bleed it to death.

A hands-off aproach is no more effective than excessive force. Diplomacy, education, and economic incentives are key, and in the meantime helping people trapped in such countries get out.

Brutality is both imoral and ineffective, but avoiding any involvment is impossible in a globalized world, so we might as well be proactively involved, as oposed to reluctantly. And as I have already expressed, human rights come first. Always.

If families are the problem, wipe out the families. If culture is the problem, eliminate the culture. Use force for maximum efficiency.
Yes. That's why I actually like your idea of a railroad carrying women and girls away so much. It's two birds with one stone: you save women from being abused - and you break the families and eliminate the culture. And as long as they're brought into monogamous cultures, help fight the overpopulation.

Just separate the Pakistani and let the ethnicity die out in a civilized, violence-free way.

A hands-off aproach is no more effective than excessive force. Diplomacy, education, and economic incentives are key, and in the meantime helping people trapped in such countries get out.

Brutality is both imoral and ineffective, but avoiding any involvment is impossible in a globalized world, so we might as well be proactively involved, as oposed to reluctantly. And as I have already expressed, human rights come first. Always.
Agreed. Up the revolution, brothers and sisters. ;)

And let's start by shooting Vault 10 before he ruins the whole plan.

Yes. That's why I actually like your idea of a railroad carrying women and girls away so much. It's two birds with one stone: you save women from being abused - and you break the families and eliminate the culture. And as long as they're brought into monogamous cultures, help fight the overpopulation.

Just separate the Pakistani and let the ethnicity die out in a civilized, violence-free way.
^^ First up against the wall for the crime of just not getting it.

Yes. That's why I actually like your idea of a railroad carrying women and girls away so much. It's two birds with one stone: you save women from being abused - and you break the families and eliminate the culture. And as long as they're brought into monogamous cultures, help fight the overpopulation.

Just separate the Pakistani and let the ethnicity die out in a civilized, violence-free way.

I'm not sure ethnicity is the problem here. Try religion.

I'm not sure ethnicity is the problem here. Try religion.
No, let's not try religion, either. Instead, let's try eliminating or counteracting the prison-like conditions that stop women physically leaving abusive environments, so that those who want to get out can. The loss of women and children, and enlightened men, from the society should be enough in and of itself to get the men/power structure who remain to think about abandoning their old system, eventually.

That and the economic sanctions for human rights violations hitting them from the governmental side of things.

^^ First up against the wall for the crime of just not getting it.
Oh, don't worry, I'm totally getting it. I just always look at least one step further.

Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


I'm not sure ethnicity is the problem here. Try religion.
Ethnicity, religion, culture. The whole package.

Oh, don't worry, I'm totally getting it. I just always look at least one step further.

Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.



Ethnicity, religion, culture. The whole package.
And you're determined to go speeding right down that road. I think I'd better drive.

EDIT: See, this is actually why it's a good thing I do not wield absolute power in any part of the world, because if I did, there'd be a constantly replenished pile of corpses outside my headquarters. And they'd all be the remains of people who rushed in with great ideas about looking at least one step further and taking care of whole packages. Such people are always trouble, and when I'm running a big project, I don't need eager little beavers running around the edges, going off the program and fucking everything up. There's is a certain type of person who I tend to feel an urge to just shoot before doing anything else, just to stave off the headache I know they'll cause me.

It's sort of, the start of every project is "Step 1: Shoot that guy."

And you're determined to go speeding right down that road. I think I'd better drive.
Not really. I openly admit I'm evil, not much about good intentions.

Oh, don't worry, I'm totally getting it. I just always look at least one step further.

Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.



Ethnicity, religion, culture. The whole package.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Keep that in mind. Removing the victims of specific actions or threats is one thing. Openly seeking to break up famillies with the goal of remaking the entire society might be going to far, and to quickly. Even if the goal is admirable, drastic measures usually do more harm than good. The last thing to do is to provoke a backlash which makes this society even more insular and violent.

Not really. I openly admit I'm evil, not much about good intentions.
Oh, well, then I'd definitely shoot you first. :D

Removing the victims of specific actions or threats is one thing. Openly seeking to break up famillies with the goal of remaking the entire society might be going to far, and to quickly.
It's the same thing. The goals are radically different - the actions and thus the results, not so much.

Oh, well, then I'd definitely shoot you first.
When we get to Hell, yes. But in this world, there are no good ways to winning; besides, world domination is as evil as it gets.

Not really. I openly admit I'm evil, not much about good intentions.

So your not advocating rescue these women for moral reasons. So what's the point then? You have no higher goal, you might well gain no profit from it, so why? You'd tear apart their famillies and societies for what? Just for laughs? That's low, man.

When we get to Hell, yes. But in this world, there are no good ways to winning; besides, world domination is as evil as it gets.

Except my desire is not to dominate the world, but to liberate its people. I don't want to dictate too them, just help them live long, safe, and happy lives.

So your not advocating rescue these women for moral reasons. So what's the point then? You have no higher goal, you might well gain no profit from it, so why? You'd tear apart their famillies and societies for what?
Oh, not me. I'm not the one who came up with the idea. Muravyets is.
(That's the best thing about evil: people with good intentions do most of the work for it).

For stopping male domination and abuse of women, of course. You think these girls were killed because their dads were particularly violent? No, they were killed because they tried to violate the chain of command. So she'd have to ship out nearly all women and girls.

Culling the world's population as a result, by removing the Pakistani, would be a positive side effect, serendipity. And it would free up some planet's resources for us.

It's the same thing. The goals are radically different - the actions and thus the results, not so much.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that running an underground railroad would be effectively the same as forcibly removing children from their homes and making them conform to a foreign culture whether they want to or not?

How do you figure that? In the first scenario, a method of leaving is made available to those who want to leave. Nobody is forced to go or change. In the second scenario, change is forced on individuals whether they welcome it or not. The second scenario has a foreign influence actively attacking a culture. The first scenario merely has a foreign influence not supporting a culture.

While I may think it is bad to deliberately destroy a culture, that does not mean I think I have any obligation to try to preserve a culture. Let it adapt and survive, or not, just like everything else on the planet.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether these cultures become extinct or not. I choose not to actively destroy them because I think that's an unethical thing to do, and my ethics are all about me, not them. I also happen to believe that it is unethical to do nothing at all to help people who are suffering under oppression. So, to fulfill my ethics, I would need to find a way to help the oppressed while having as little interaction with the oppressive culture as possible. I would do this for my own sake, not for theirs. I don't really care what effect my actions have on the cultures. I care only about the effect on me. I only care about my ability to say with honesty at the end of the day that I did the right thing.

When we get to Hell, yes. But in this world, there are no good ways to winning; besides, world domination is as evil as it gets.
I disagree about there being no good way to win.

Oh, not me. I'm not the one who came up with the idea. Muravyets is.
(That's the best thing about evil: people with good intentions do most of the work for it).

For stopping male domination and abuse of women, of course. You think these girls were killed because their dads were particularly violent? No, they were killed because they tried to violate the chain of command. So she'd have to ship out nearly all women and girls.
No, I wouldn't. I would only have to ship out those who did not want to live under that power structure. The only ones being oppressed by it are the ones who feel oppressed.

Culling the world's population as a result, by removing the Pakistani, would be a positive side effect, serendipity. And it would free up some planet's resources for us.
What makes you think that no Pakistani men would also leave? What makes you think that all Pakistani women would leave? What makes you think the Pakistanis would be unable to find anyone willing to fuck them?

Your airy dismissal of the very idea of offering help to people is based on a lack of realistic thinking.

So your not advocating rescue these women for moral reasons. So what's the point then? You have no higher goal, you might well gain no profit from it, so why? You'd tear apart their famillies and societies for what? Just for laughs? That's low, man.
One thing you have to realize about V10 is that he is a high-order, high-function troll. He loves to draw people into elaborate arguments about bizarre plans that are ridiculously unrealistic and which he uses as a means to spout odd-ball and borderline offensive "philosophies." Watch, he'll get rolling on this one pretty soon now.

How do you figure that? In the first scenario, a method of leaving is made available to those who want to leave.
Yes, and it totally has to be an underground railroad. It can't be a bus and a regular road, because, you know, there are no village border patrols and guard towers.

And your railroad will run empty: not many know other languages and are ready to adapt in a whole new society. And most of those who do, can leave on their own already.


I also happen to believe that it is unethical to do nothing at all to help people who are suffering under oppression.
I don't really care what effect my actions have on the cultures. I care only about the effect on me.
Well, so why not just VX them? We'll have the media convince you it's the right thing to do.

So your not advocating rescue these women for moral reasons. So what's the point then? You have no higher goal, you might well gain no profit from it, so why? You'd tear apart their famillies and societies for what? Just for laughs? That's low, man.
See? He's on his roll now:

Yes, and it totally has to be an underground railroad. It can't be a bus and a regular road, because, you know, there are no village border patrols and guard towers.

And your railroad will run empty: not many know other languages and are ready to adapt in a whole new society. And most of those who do, can leave on their own already.



Well, so why not just VX them? We'll have the media convince you it's the right thing to do.
That didn't take long at all.

They did the exact same thing with Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, look what happened there.

Sheesh people. If someone like Kimchi talked about doing the exact same thing most of the posters here would be howling in outrage.

They did the exact same thing with Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, look what happened there.

Sheesh people. If someone like Kimchi talked about doing the exact same thing most of the posters here would be howling in outrage.
That's because Kimchi was serious when he said shit like that. This one's just trolling.

As brutal as that is...it would probably work.


This IS cultural destruction we are talking about after all. No matter how much anyone else tries to dress it up, it will involve a systematic and harsh method in order to completely eliminate that idea.

Besides, even in the Western world, you cannot deny that this sort of mentality still persists in various pockets of society, just dressed up in different terms.


I guess the question is whether or not people would be willing to stomach it, but if you ask me anyone who teaches their children it's okay to beat women and kill them in the name of "honor" neither deserves children nor the privilege of raising them to be adults.

Just remember. Once something like this begins, there is no turning back. Doing so will make any attempts at restarting it far harder.


Perhaps complete separation is a little harsh, but perhaps the system of reeducation could be extended to adults as well. I think we'd be surprised to see the effects of a comprehensive, Western adult education program combined with systematic elimination and replacement of extremists at the mosques and the construction of new theological schools to educate a new generation of moderate religious leaders.

This is not ethnic cleansing, nor is it an apartheid. It is the destruction of ideas and conceptions, a far harder task. It is best to view it as a highly contagious disease with few, if any, symptoms, is capable of long periods of incubation, and has no guaranteed treatments. This means removing it involves quarantines and long periods of rehabilitation.

Yes, indeed, the easiest way to solve a problem caused by people is to destroy the people. If families are the problem, wipe out the families. If culture is the problem, eliminate the culture. Use force for maximum efficiency.

Unfortunately, I find such tactics to be every bit as heinous and intolerable as the honor killings that the OP talks about. So I guess, I'd have to destroy you guys, too. After all, we can't have such high-handed, trigger-happy types as you running around loose, now can we? After all, you have the potential to cause problems, too. Better to nip you in the bud before you get any more ideas.

Now we have illustrated the fundamental problem, and weakness, of colonialism.

I have highlighted the issue with such an approach, mind you. However, this is the fundamental problem. The problem is culture. An entrenched opinion that holds very strongly in the minds of these people. If left alone, nothing will change. Any attempts to educate them otherwise by conventional means is very much like sending biology teachers to instruct hardcore young earth creationists in evolution. It will be resisted, with very little successful conversions.

Your railroad idea on the other hand, is also likely to run into problems, notably, that it will also involve force. Some will resist, and those who notice will likely clamp down even harsher measures to make sure that any escapees will have a much harder time or die trying.

At the end of the day, whichever method we choose, even if it's nothing at all, blood will be shed. The question to ask is this. How much are you willing to sacrifice to put an end to it?

Ultimately however, I suspect any of the two active approaches will be somewhat futile since it will not solve the much more complex problem of the environment breeding such mentalities, environments that much better connected and influential groups would rather stay that way, or aren't bothered to change.

I have highlighted the issue with such an approach, mind you. However, this is the fundamental problem. The problem is culture. An entrenched opinion that holds very strongly in the minds of these people. If left alone, nothing will change. Any attempts to educate them otherwise by conventional means is very much like sending biology teachers to instruct hardcore young earth creationists in evolution. It will be resisted, with very little successful conversions.

Your railroad idea on the other hand, is also likely to run into problems, notably, that it will also involve force. Some will resist, and those who notice will likely clamp down even harsher measures to make sure that any escapees will have a much harder time or die trying.

At the end of the day, whichever method we choose, even if it's nothing at all, blood will be shed. The question to ask is this. How much are you willing to sacrifice to put an end to it?
The exact same thing happened with the pre-Civil War railroad and with the networks that helped Jews escape from the Nazis. Both escapees and those helping them were killed if the oppressors caught them. Other governments refused to cooperate and, instead, repatriated the escapees back where they came from and jailed those helping them. That's just part of the territory when you choose to do something like this. Despite the backlashes, many, many lives were saved by both historical efforts.

That didn't take long at all.
Don't oversimplify as trolling what is a valid and expected response to your argument.

You said yourself that you don't care what effect your actions actually cause, you only need to believe you "did the right thing".
[By the way, that's why most righteous people cause more harm than openly evil ones: it's consequences they never bother to foresee, as all they need is to please themselves with the feeling of self-righteousness.]

So why don't we just have the media convince you that whatever is done is exactly the right thing to do, and spare the expense?

This IS cultural destruction we are talking about after all. No matter how much anyone else tries to dress it up, it will involve a systematic and harsh method in order to completely eliminate that idea.

Besides, even in the Western world, you cannot deny that this sort of mentality still persists in various pockets of society, just dressed up in different terms.

There's another problem with that approach and it comes from the old wisdom that you can't kill an idea. I'd say you'd have even less success killing a mindset.

As you point out, the mindset behind such brutality is not exclusive to these particular cultures. Right here in the US, we have women being treated in similar ways. The only difference is that here, the culture is less condoning of it. Regardless of whatever gloss of cultural tradition is laid over this sort of thing, the mindset that causes people to inflict such brutality on others will not disappear even if the culture does. So all the culture-smasher will have accomplished is to manufacture enemies for himself while doing nothing to change how brutal, oppressive individuals treat the people around them. He will not have broken the cycle of violence, only changed the package it comes in.

I disagree about there being no good way to win.

When you think about it, there isn't. Those who "win" are those who get their hands dirty. Those who refuse to do so are often the ones who lose out because they will not consider acting as those who do, making them vulnerable.

The exact same thing happened with the pre-Civil War railroad and with the networks that helped Jews escape from the Nazis.
Godwin-Godwin, thread carefully. There's a reason for this "Law of Internets": it's that comparisons to Nazi are way too often used to skew and exaggerate the issues.

Are you sure Pakistani villages have as strong barriers to leaving them as the Nazi germany?

Don't oversimplify as trolling what is a valid and expected response to your argument.

<snip>
There is nothing valid in your statements.

Godwin-Godwin.

Are you sure Pakistani villages have as strong barriers to leaving them as the Nazi germany?
Yes. German towns were not all walled in. They had their checkpoints at border crossings. So does Pakistan. Many women who try to leave their husbands and are caught and returned are actually grabbed at airports and border crossings, just like Jews trying to leave Germany. If you knew anything at all about the topic of the thread, you would have known that.

Also, my statement is not a Godwin because I was not comparing the Pakistanis to the Nazis. I was comparing one system of smuggling refugees out of a place to another system of smuggling refugees out of a place. Apparently, you don't know what a Godwin is any more than you know anything about the thread topic.

Like I said, nothing valid in your posts at all.

When you think about it, there isn't. Those who "win" are those who get their hands dirty. Those who refuse to do so are often the ones who lose out because they will not consider acting as those who do, making them vulnerable.
I have spent many years thinking about precisely this question of "winning." I disagree with you. As a practical matter and for purely pragmatic reasons, I believe not only that "win-win" outcomes are possible, but that they are preferable to most other outcomes, most of the time. So even if they take more effort, they are worth it because they pay off better in the long run.

I have come to reject the attitude that many people have that, in order for someone to win, someone else must lose. I see that attitude as a contributing factor to many problems.

Also, my statement is not a Godwin because I was not comparing the Pakistanis to the Nazis.
You are right now.
[ comparing the Pakistanis to the Nazis. ]


There is nothing valid in your statements.
Who is quick to slip down, now? You said you only care about convincing yourself you (your gov't) did the right thing. And that's better done with media brainwashing than with actually changing the actions.

Because, you know, everyone has their own ideas about what the right thing is.

You are right now.
You're right, I am right. Now. I was right then, too.

Who is quick to slip down, now? You said you only care about convincing yourself you (your gov't) did the right thing. And that's better done with media brainwashing than with actually changing the actions.
Because, you know, everyone has their own ideas about what the right thing is.
I'm not biting at that bait. Try something else.

And make it something good because you only have one response from me left. After the trolling properly begins, I only give trolls three responses, to avoid over-feeding them. Once you've used up your last one from me, you'll have to find someone else in the thread to play with.

Many women who try to leave their husbands and are caught and returned are actually grabbed at airports and border crossings, just like Jews trying to leave Germany. Also, my statement is not a Godwin because I was not comparing the Pakistanis to the Nazis. You are right now. You're right, I am right. Now. I was right then, too.




After the trolling properly begins, I only give trolls three responses,
To give trolls a response, you would have to reply to yourself.

To give trolls a response, you would have to reply to yourself.
You got the responses your comments warranted.

And that's number 3. Bye now. You find someone else to play with, 'kay? Have fun.

They did the exact same thing with Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, look what happened there.

Sheesh people. If someone like Kimchi talked about doing the exact same thing most of the posters here would be howling in outrage.

Am I advocating it? Not really. But I acknowledge that if you want to remove the key factors that are causing the problems, this is how to go about it.

When you want to kill culture and ideas, either you kill everyone who believes in it and destroy evidence of its existence, or you sterilize and contain it and let time take its toll.

The exact same thing happened with the pre-Civil War railroad and with the networks that helped Jews escape from the Nazis. Both escapees and those helping them were killed if the oppressors caught them. Other governments refused to cooperate and, instead, repatriated the escapees back where they came from and jailed those helping them. That's just part of the territory when you choose to do something like this. Despite the backlashes, many, many lives were saved by both historical efforts.

Lives were saved, yes, but the underlying problems never went away until the barrel of a gun was pointed their way, and once the gun went away, the problems all sprouted back, and took over a 100 years before any progress was made at chipping it away, and still persists now.

The underground railroad was small potatoes compared to the bigger picture.

There's another problem with that approach and it comes from the old wisdom that you can't kill an idea. I'd say you'd have even less success killing a mindset.

Ideas, and the mindsets that spring from them, can be killed. The Catholic church certainly managed to wipe out a great many ideas, both by killing the ones who held the ideas as well as destroying evidence of them.

Does anyone worship Zeus anymore? No? Then the Catholic church has killed an idea already.


Regardless of whatever gloss of cultural tradition is laid over this sort of thing, the mindset that causes people to inflict such brutality on others will not disappear even if the culture does.

A nature vs nurture question, one that has no argument ending empirical evidence for or against insofar as I know.

I have spent many years thinking about precisely this question of "winning." I disagree with you. As a practical matter and for purely pragmatic reasons, I believe not only that "win-win" outcomes are possible, but that they are preferable to most other outcomes, most of the time.


This depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes winning. One could say a suicidal person meeting a pathological murderer is a "win-win" situation after all.


I have come to reject the attitude that many people have that, in order for someone to win, someone else must lose. I see that attitude as a contributing factor to many problems.

Someone else will always lose. The natural equilibrium of social dynamics makes it inevitable. An everyone wins scenario usually works because it discounts something along the line that does lose.

Lives were saved, yes, but the underlying problems never went away until the barrel of a gun was pointed their way, and once the gun went away, the problems all sprouted back, and took over a 100 years before any progress was made at chipping it away, and still persists now.
That is historicaly debatable, but it would also be too far off-topic.

The underground railroad was small potatoes compared to the bigger picture.
So? I say do it anyway.

Ideas, and the mindsets that spring from them, can be killed. The Catholic church certainly managed to wipe out a great many ideas, both by killing the ones who held the ideas as well as destroying evidence of them.

Does anyone worship Zeus anymore? No? Then the Catholic church has killed an idea already.
Actually a number of people do worship Zeus nowadays. The Catholic church failed to kill that idea to such an extent that whole new religions are being started up just for the purpose of worshipping the gods the Catholics sought to supplant. Not to mention all the other gods that have either been dusted off or newly invented because the Catholic church failed to kill the idea of polytheism in general.

And anyway, this brings me back to my first post in which I envisioned myself as another party holding the same worldview as the one you posit, and looking up on you et al. as potential problems similar to the topic problem. And problems need to be solved, so... into the same mass grave go you.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier: The problem with copping superior attitudes, such as thinking you should be the one to go ahead and "fix" someone else, is that the same attitude can always be applied against you. If you're going to worry about ridding the world of problem notions, you should look at your own problem notions, too. Before they cause a problem for you.


A nature vs nurture question, one that has no argument ending empirical evidence for or against insofar as I know.
That being the case, we may take whatever position on it we like. I'll take the position I outlined.

This depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes winning. One could say a suicidal person meeting a pathological murderer is a "win-win" situation after all.
Indeed. As long as everyone walks away at least 70% happy, I don't see a downside.

Someone else will always lose. The natural equilibrium of social dynamics makes it inevitable. An everyone wins scenario usually works because it discounts something along the line that does lose.
I disagree. I don't expect to persuade you, though, and I'm not trying to. I don't need to in order to get my way in various things that matter to me.

So? I say do it anyway.

Doesn't much solve the problem. A bit like how invading certain middle east countries doesn't solve a certain other problem.


Actually a number of people do worship Zeus nowadays. The Catholic church failed to kill that idea to such an extent that whole new religions are being started up just for the purpose of worshipping the gods the Catholics sought to supplant.

That's reinventing the wheel, not a continuous holding onto an idea. Nothing can really be done to stop that.


That was the point I was trying to make earlier: The problem with copping superior attitudes, such as thinking you should be the one to go ahead and "fix" someone else, is that the same attitude can always be applied against you. If you're going to worry about ridding the world of problem notions, you should look at your own problem notions, too. Before they cause a problem for you.

Is it now? I suspect you are operating under a misconception. I don't believe I should be the one going to "fix" the root causes here. Nor would I advocate it. As I have pointed out, and you acknowledged, such issues will always resurface at some point or another, so it seems a bit futile to me.

But if it is deemed a problem, and there are those who wish to resolve it, then this particular path seems the only practical one to me. I acknowledge the reality of the situation, but that does not mean I advocate it.


That being the case, we may take whatever position on it we like. I'll take the position I outlined.

Seeing as how systems are limited in resources, and people are selfishness is an innate aspect of the human species, I really don't see how this win-win situation of yours can come to be. Why don't you give an example, and we shall see if we can poke a hole in it?

Doesn't much solve the problem. A bit like how invading certain middle east countries doesn't solve a certain other problem.
I do not believe it is valid to compare the idea of attempting to help individuals out of a bad situation with the launching of a war of aggression.

Also I would remind you that the current wars were not launched to solve a problem.

That's reinventing the wheel, not a continuous holding onto an idea. Nothing can really be done to stop that.
Excuse me, but you were talking about the killing of an idea, not a specific form of religious ritual. The idea of worshipping Zeus survives, despite all efforts to kill it, so that attempt to kill an idea failed.

Is it now? I suspect you are operating under a misconception. I don't believe I should be the one going to "fix" the root causes here. Nor would I advocate it. As I have pointed out, and you acknowledged, such issues will always resurface at some point or another, so it seems a bit futile to me.

But if it is deemed a problem, and there are those who wish to resolve it, then this particular path seems the only practical one to me. I acknowledge the reality of the situation, but that does not mean I advocate it.
I know that. I was using the rhetorical "you" which somehow seems easier to read many times in a paragraph than "one" (you know, as pronouns go).

Seeing as how systems are limited in resources, and people are selfishness is an innate aspect of the human species, I really don't see how this win-win situation of yours can come to be. Why don't you give an example, and we shall see if we can poke a hole in it?
I am hesitant to get into it with you here and now for two reasons:

1) It's 2AM and I need to put my head on the pillow already. Plus, I'll be out most of the weekend and thus perhaps not available to follow up. I can outline examples and find some sources to link to, but not right now, and I'm not sure when.

2) It would be very far off topic. Maybe next week someone (like you) could start a thread for it. (I never start threads myself; it would be bad for my reputation.) I'll bet it would make a humdinger of a thread. Imagine the bullshit arguments and arcane philosophizing that would go on. :)

If you want to make it relevant to this thread, please give me a couple of days to get back to you on it. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree on this point for this thread and save the in depth discussion for another time. How's that sound?

EDIT: Even my cat is yelling at me to go to bed, so I'm going. I'll check in over breakfast to see how you want to proceed on the win-lose versus win-win discussion, which could actually be fairly interesting (even if not appropriate for this particular thread).

Traditions shmaditions.
It was more the "I will continue to defend them" part from a high-ranking politician that's disturbing.

I meant that I don't think the current definition of "refugee" applies to people in circumstances such as this. I think it should.

It does, but on an individual level. If a woman can show that she has a well-founded fear of well-founded fear of being persecuted (killed) due to being a woman (membership of a particular social group), and the government can't or won't protect her, she can get refugee status.

Though remember, there's a huge difference between urban and rural (tribal) areas in Pakistan, so if a woman moves into one of the bigger cities she may find the protection she seeks. However, being a woman alone in a big Pakistani city without any family or clan to protect her and aid her carries with it its own set of problems and dangers.

I do not believe it is valid to compare the idea of attempting to help individuals out of a bad situation with the launching of a war of aggression.

Only if you look at the act and not the stated goals, and lack of achievement.


Also I would remind you that the current wars were not launched to solve a problem.

Technically, yes. The problem was called terrorism.


Excuse me, but you were talking about the killing of an idea, not a specific form of religious ritual. The idea of worshipping Zeus survives, despite all efforts to kill it, so that attempt to kill an idea failed.

The idea of worshiping Zeus didn't survive. It died out centuries ago. It was resurrected only relatively recently, and well after the church stopped trying to stamp it out.


I am hesitant to get into it with you here and now for two reasons:

1) It's 2AM and I need to put my head on the pillow already. Plus, I'll be out most of the weekend and thus perhaps not available to follow up. I can outline examples and find some sources to link to, but not right now, and I'm not sure when.

2) It would be very far off topic. Maybe next week someone (like you) could start a thread for it. (I never start threads myself; it would be bad for my reputation.) I'll bet it would make a humdinger of a thread. Imagine the bullshit arguments and arcane philosophizing that would go on. :)

If you want to make it relevant to this thread, please give me a couple of days to get back to you on it. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree on this point for this thread and save the in depth discussion for another time. How's that sound?

EDIT: Even my cat is yelling at me to go to bed, so I'm going. I'll check in over breakfast to see how you want to proceed on the win-lose versus win-win discussion, which could actually be fairly interesting (even if not appropriate for this particular thread).

We shall see, in another 8 hours or so I suspect.

Only if you look at the act and not the stated goals, and lack of achievement.



Technically, yes. The problem was called terrorism.
That was a lie. I don't count people's self-serving lies as reasons why they did something. The actual reason for launching the wars (I'm talking about the conflicts initiated by the US) was to create a problem, not solve one. It was to create an ongoing condition of warfare and instability in the hope of triggering a series of problems extending into the future, which particular politicians and private interests hope to exploit for personal gain.

The idea of worshiping Zeus didn't survive. It died out centuries ago. It was resurrected only relatively recently, and well after the church stopped trying to stamp it out.
If the idea was dead -- as in nobody had it anymore -- how could it possibly have been revived? What would there have been for modern people to revive, if the idea itself was gone from this world?

No, you are confusing action with thought, object with concept. What was stamped out for centuries was the worship of Zeus as a physical and social activity. The idea of worshipping Zeus obviously survived, because we can point to people who have it and who can show the historical sources they got it from -- meaning that they did not invent a new wheel, they just dusted off and updated an old wheel, one which the Catholic church thought they had gotten rid of. Conclusion: The Catholic church failed to kill the idea of worshipping Zeus (or any other god in general).

We shall see, in another 8 hours or so I suspect.
What do you mean? Do you want me to look the stuff up or not, and if so, do you want me to post it here or not?

Either way, I'll have the information on Monday, 9/15.

That was a lie. I don't count people's self-serving lies as reasons why they did something. The actual reason for launching the wars (I'm talking about the conflicts initiated by the US) was to create a problem, not solve one. It was to create an ongoing condition of warfare and instability in the hope of triggering a series of problems extending into the future, which particular politicians and private interests hope to exploit for personal gain.

Well then, the problem was a lack thereof of another sort of problem. Of course there is a possibility that these problems may spawn other, unforeseen consequences that will become yet another problem to these people.


If the idea was dead -- as in nobody had it anymore -- how could it possibly have been revived? What would there have been for modern people to revive, if the idea itself was gone from this world?

Archaeological records and information gleaned from materials that weren't destroyed. The idea was killed, but the tidying up was sloppy.


No, you are confusing action with thought, object with concept. What was stamped out for centuries was the worship of Zeus as a physical and social activity. The idea of worshipping Zeus obviously survived, because we can point to people who have it and who can show the historical sources they got it from

Ideas survive only for so long as there is someone to have that idea. Once there are no more living people with that knowledge of an idea, it perishes. All that remains is whatever records that were left behind.

Ideas, unlike people, can be brought back from the dead.


What do you mean? Do you want me to look the stuff up or not, and if so, do you want me to post it here or not?

Either way, I'll have the information on Monday, 9/15.

Well, 8 hours have passed, and try as I might, I couldn't think up a good way to start the thread with enough meat to make for a decent debate, so here it will have to be I suppose.

Well then, the problem was a lack thereof of another sort of problem. Of course there is a possibility that these problems may spawn other, unforeseen consequences that will become yet another problem to these people.
Indeed. With so many possibilities in the works, I often wish bookmaking was legal in the US.

Archaeological records and information gleaned from materials that weren't destroyed. The idea was killed, but the tidying up was sloppy.



Ideas survive only for so long as there is someone to have that idea. Once there are no more living people with that knowledge of an idea, it perishes. All that remains is whatever records that were left behind.

Ideas, unlike people, can be brought back from the dead.
I think you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree on this point because as far as I'm concerned, if it's here, then it wasn't dead, but I see no reason for us to devote more time to arguing over it. I think we've reached the bottom line, which is this: You think it's possible to kill an idea. I think it isn't. But I think it hardly matters since we both agree that an idea that was presumed dead can come back to plague us again, so that is still an argument against the kinds of measures to destroy an idea/way of thinking that we have been discussing.

Well, 8 hours have passed, and try as I might, I couldn't think up a good way to start the thread with enough meat to make for a decent debate, so here it will have to be I suppose.
Oh, I see. Okay then. I have found two sources that I want to use, but the main one has a huge amount of info on it, so I want to compose a proper and usable post with targeted links. I'll post it by the end of Monday or sooner. :)

There's exactly one solution to this: education.
Wahey for education, the magic bullet for every problem in the world.
Set up secular schools in every village. Require attendance from age six to age 16, and teach the kids basic literacy and numeracy, social interaction, a broader cultural perspective, and once they reach about 14, sex ed.

This is the only way to break an entrenched and diseased culture such as the one in tribal Pakistan.
Yeah good luck finding non-tribal teachers who are willing to go to Waziristan and the surrounding region to teach them stuff which they know the childrens' parents will tell them to ignore...



This sucks beyond measure and I have no idea how to sort it out. Since even the military has neither the capability nor the will to go into most of tribal Pakistan, I can't really see what we can do about all this. Obviously "we British should re-occupy it" would be a good plan, were it not for the fairly obvious flaws in every area of it.

Set up secular schools in every village....<snip>

We are talking about a region with an ideology that causes religious leaders to whip up the people against polio vaccination causing recurring and increasing polio cases.

The reason given "It is a conspiracy if the west / joo / hindoo to sterilise us muslims".

Yeah...good luck with "secular education"..

Yeah good luck finding non-tribal teachers who are willing to go to Waziristan

Fixed, remember what happened last time you spelt this wrong.

Fixed, remember what happened last time you spelt this wrong.
Cheers, I always get it wrong, and the BBC don't help by sometimes pronouncing it Warizstan.

What in the world is Warzistan?



*No, I don't want the pedowikia answer.

It's part of Pakistan.

Oh, not me. I'm not the one who came up with the idea. Muravyets is.
(That's the best thing about evil: people with good intentions do most of the work for it).

For stopping male domination and abuse of women, of course. You think these girls were killed because their dads were particularly violent? No, they were killed because they tried to violate the chain of command. So she'd have to ship out nearly all women and girls.

Culling the world's population as a result, by removing the Pakistani, would be a positive side effect, serendipity. And it would free up some planet's resources for us.

Frankly I can't tell weather your serious about what your saying, or weather your simply treating the topic as a joke. If the later, I find that rather distastful.

What in the world is Warzistan?
The shittiest part of shitty country Pakistan.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1382073.aspx



This just sickens me. I want to go to Pakistan, find these men, and rip their fucking heads off in front of the entire village.

However, barring divine intervention, that would end up getting me killed.

Anyone got better ideas? Here's one: womens' shelter bunkers. Similar to Western womens' shelters, only built to withstand assault by an angry village. I'm thinking concrete walls, barbed wire, machine guns, and the nearest military base on speed-dial.

Also, Pakistan needs to enforce its own laws. Tribal leaders not cooperating? Send in the military. Occupy the damn region. Do whatever it takes.

Some would suggest that these... monsters... suffer the same fate as their victims. I think they should suffer the exact opposite - never buried. After shooting them, their remains should be incinerated, and the ashes thrown away.

You know, whenever I posted similar threads people labelled me "nazi" and "bigot". I understand how you feel, though I beleive that many customs were forged for a practical reason yet some deserve to be wiped out entirely. There were and still are times I wished I can set up an army in some bad part of the world were ignorance and barbarity rule and then blast away and destroy any group, village or community that committed evil deeds like the one the OP reported. I guess anyone can do anything here but when I do it it's suddenly horrendous.

I do agree with you however, the village deserves brutal punishment.

You know, whenever I posted similar threads people labelled me "nazi" and "bigot". I understand how you feel, though I beleive that many customs were forged for a practical reason yet some deserve to be wiped out entirely. There were and still are times I wished I can set up an army in some bad part of the world were ignorance and barbarity rule and then blast away and destroy any group, village or community that committed evil deeds like the one the OP reported. I guess anyone can do anything here but when I do it it's suddenly horrendous.

I do agree with you however, the village deserves brutal punishment.
The difference is between an OP who denounces a crime and, in addition to expressing outrage, also calls for enforcement of laws and help for the victims, and asks for constructive ideas about how such a situation might be addressed, versus a certain small group of other posters who use issues like this as an excuse to bash an entire ethnic group and or an entire religion indiscriminately -- sometimes using language so bigoted that it amounts to racism -- and who spend more time drooling over fantasies of slaughtering whole communities than they do talking about the crime and its victims. I think there may be a reason why Mirkana is not being called a "bigot" whereas you and some others I could think of may have been.*


*I say "may have" simply because I'm not referring to any specific instance of it happening. I don't doubt that you've been called such. I also suspect there was a reason.

The difference is between an OP who denounces a crime and, in addition to expressing outrage, also calls for enforcement of laws and help for the victims, and asks for constructive ideas about how such a situation might be addressed, versus a certain small group of other posters who use issues like this as an excuse to bash an entire ethnic group and or an entire religion indiscriminately -- sometimes using language so bigoted that it amounts to racism -- and who spend more time drooling over fantasies of slaughtering whole communities than they do talking about the crime and its victims. I think there may be a reason why Mirkana is not being called a "bigot" whereas you and some others I could think of may have been.*


*I say "may have" simply because I'm not referring to any specific instance of it happening. I don't doubt that you've been called such. I also suspect there was a reason.

While I see what your saying, it is also my experience that their is a certain idiotic segment of the population who think that any culture must be respected, that beleiving otherwise is racist or whatever, and to whom arguments to the contrary have all the success of a car hitting a steel wall. I am sure that their are many who would lable me racist, imperialist, or collonialist because I beleive in certain universal standards of human rights.

Death is needed for all of them.

Personally, I vote for getting together somes guns, traveling to a neighboring country and then infiltration and death.

But that's just me.

While I see what your saying, it is also my experience that their is a certain idiotic segment of the population who think that any culture must be respected, that beleiving otherwise is racist or whatever, and to whom arguments to the contrary have all the success of a car hitting a steel wall. I am sure that their are many who would lable me racist, imperialist, or collonialist because I beleive in certain universal standards of human rights.
Bigots come in all flavors. So do idiots. I seldom feel the need to mention all the different kinds every time I want to talk about one kind, because, in my personal opinion, the existence of idiots on one side of line does not cut any slack for idiots on the opposing side of the line. So just because there are nuts who spout stupid bullshit and shout "bigot" at every critic of a culture, that doesn't buy any leeway for their counterparts who only jump on human rights bandwagons so they can say bigoted things about other people.

But that's just how I view things.

Do you people honestly imagine that culturally-motivated violence against women is something specific to Islam, the Arab world, or Pakistan?

Do you people honestly imagine that culturally-motivated violence against women is something specific to Islam, the Arab world, or Pakistan?

I garuntee you most of them do.

Bigots come in all flavors. So do idiots. I seldom feel the need to mention all the different kinds every time I want to talk about one kind, because, in my personal opinion, the existence of idiots on one side of line does not cut any slack for idiots on the opposing side of the line. So just because there are nuts who spout stupid bullshit and shout "bigot" at every critic of a culture, that doesn't buy any leeway for their counterparts who only jump on human rights bandwagons so they can say bigoted things about other people.

But that's just how I view things.

I agree. Its just that you seemed unfamilliar with the background of the individual you were adressing, yet more or less assumed they were a bigot.

Do you people honestly imagine that culturally-motivated violence against women is something specific to Islam, the Arab world, or Pakistan?
There are some people who seem to imagine that. I don't know how "honestly" they do it, though.

Do you people honestly imagine that culturally-motivated violence against women is something specific to Islam, the Arab world, or Pakistan?

I do not. It just seems some what more prevellant in that region and that religion at this time.

But no, of course its not an Islamic thing exclusively. Take our own home grown religious wack-jobs in America (ie Warren Jeffs and his fellow scumbags).

My point here is that I don't care about why its being done or who's doing it nearly as much as I care about stopping it.

I agree. Its just that you seemed unfamilliar with the background of the individual you were adressing, yet more or less assumed they were a bigot.
I am fairly familiar with his posting history. I just don't want to open up personal criticisms of individuals who have not currently said anything egregious. After all, this is not a thread about posters.

I am fairly familiar with his posting history. I just don't want to open up personal criticisms of individuals who have not currently said anything egregious. After all, this is not a thread about posters.

Ok then, sorry about any misscomunication.

I garuntee you most of them do.

Well, that's pretty stupid... because "honor killings" of some variety or another occur across a variety of cultural, religious, and national differences. They are a disease of social conservatism and religious fundamentalism, and what works against them is not the forcible imposition of a wholly different culture, but rather the same thing that brought issues like rape and domestic abuse to the center of attention in the US--strong, active, domestic feminist movements.

Just because much of the Western media likes to reinforce the racial and cultural prejudices of its audience doesn't mean we should lose sight of the real character of the situation.

I do not. It just seems some what more prevellant in that region and that religion at this time.

But no, of course its not an Islamic thing exclusively. Take our own home grown religious wack-jobs in America (ie Warren Jeffs and his fellow scumbags).

My point here is that I don't care about why its being done or who's doing it nearly as much as I care about stopping it.
And there's also good old-fashioned non-religious sexual brutality and misogyny, too. Let's not forget that. That's what I had in mind when I said that getting rid of a culture or a religion or an idea wasn't likely to help much or be the best approach (aside from its own inherent heinousness). For abusers, any excuse will do, and however many are taken away, they can always come up with new ones.

Well, that's pretty stupid... because "honor killings" of some variety or another occur across a variety of cultural, religious, and national differences. They are a disease of social conservatism and religious fundamentalism, and what works against them is not the forcible imposition of a wholly different culture, but rather the same thing that brought issues like rape and domestic abuse to the center of attention in the US--strong, active, domestic feminist movements.

Just because much of the Western media likes to reinforce the racial and cultural prejudices of its audience doesn't mean we should lose sight of the real character of the situation.

I agree in part, but I feel your solution is too narrow in its scope. A strong feminist movement might help the situation, but you are still only confronting a single symptom, not the larger cause.

The real problem is religious fundimentalism in its various forms, which is best countered by secular education and encouraging the people to take back power from bigoted religious authorities.

And there's also good old-fashioned non-religious sexual brutality and misogyny, too. Let's not forget that. That's what I had in mind when I said that getting rid of a culture or a religion or an idea wasn't likely to help much or be the best approach (aside from its own inherent heinousness). For abusers, any excuse will do, and however many are taken away, they can always come up with new ones.

Very true, that. It would be disastrous to think that we can solve these problems by targetting a specific culture or religion. In fact such a course of action would not only ignore certain aspects of these problems, it would make the problem worse by inciting anger in response to its obvious bigotry.

Any program that specifically targets Islam will probably breed support for the radical elements of Islamic society. Which will exacerbate the problem.

The real problem is religious fundimentalism in its various forms,

But it's not. The "real problem" is sexism. Religious fundamentalism sometimes reinforces this in various ways, but honor killings a not a religious matter in the same way, say, opposition to homosexuality often is. Certainly violence against women broadly speaking is not.

But it's not. The "real problem" is sexism. Religious fundamentalism sometimes reinforces this in various ways, but honor killings a not a religious matter in the same way, say, opposition to homosexuality often is. Certainly violence against women broadly speaking is not.

That raises the question of weather sexism is primarily caused by religion, or by something else, or is natural to humans in general. I doubt any of us are qualified to answer that, but your welcome to take a shot at it;).

But deal with fundimentalism and you potentially kill a lot of birds with one stone.

That raises the question of weather sexism is primarily caused by religion, or by something else, or is natural to humans in general. I doubt any of us are qualified to answer that, but your welcome to take a shot at it;).

But deal with fundimentalism and you potentially kill a lot of birds with one stone.
I'm inclined to disagree. It is my personal belief that fundamentalism, tribalism, all these sorts of "isms", are merely vehicles or modes of expression for a kind of mindset that is inherent in the human population.

In every population group of several hundred people or more, you are going to get percentages that fall into various groups: liberal, conservative, authoritarian, egalitarian, aggressive, timid, active, passive, violent, non-violent, etc, etc, etc. Decades of sociological and psychological studies have suggested very strongly that such traits are aspects of personality types and are far more nature than they are nurture because they typically occur in the same proportions in every kind of societal group regardless of culture, religion, or social structure. They originate in human beings and only find means and styles of expression in culture.

Unfortunately, I think that international statistics on rape and other kinds of sex-based crimes show that the urge to commit sex-based violence and abuse is also not culturally determined. It happens everywhere, and it seems to me that the only difference culture makes is in whether the perpetrator is allowed to get away with it or not, and in how entrenched cycles of violence and abuse will be within families.

Get rid of fundamentalism, and you won't have made even a dent in the sex-based abuse/crimes situation.

Oh, by the way, a tendency towards fundamentalist thinking is another thing that seems to have its most basic roots in personality rather than culture. This is why I don't think you can get rid of it. Fundamentalists are born, not made. Eliminate religious fundamentalism, and they'll just get fundamentalist about something else.

Oh, by the way, a tendency towards fundamentalist thinking is another thing that seems to have its most basic roots in personality rather than culture. This is why I don't think you can get rid of it. Fundamentalists are born, not made. Eliminate religious fundamentalism, and they'll just get fundamentalist about something else.

Not normally, no. But from what I have seen of cult indoctrination methods, it's not entirely impossible.

I'm surprised the cultural relativists aren't out in force saying that their culture is equally valid to ours, we shouldn't arrogantly assume that ours is superior and we should always respect their traditional ways.

Anyway, I don't think we should do anything about this. If we did we'd only get bitched at as being the nasty imperialists. Sometimes you've just got to leave them to their primitive ways. It's not like we could do anything about it anyway. The Pakistani government can't enforce the law over there, even with an army. I don't see why anyone would think the west could change anything.

Not normally, no. But from what I have seen of cult indoctrination methods, it's not entirely impossible.

Keep in mind that the leaders of various extreme fundamentalist groups aren't that fundamentalist themselves. They make fundamentalists because they're easier to use and control. If fundamentalists all disappear, some bastard is going to make them again.

Not normally, no. But from what I have seen of cult indoctrination methods, it's not entirely impossible.
How much have you seen of cult indoctrination methods, and even more to the point, have much have you seen of anti-cult dis-indoctrination methods, and how much have you seen of the people who join cults, before, during and after their cult-member stints?

Do you know that the people who became indoctrinated into cults were not fundamentalist-minded individuals to begin with, before they ever heard of the cult they joined? Of the relatively small number of people (compared to total world population) who join cults, what is it that makes some of them want to leave the cult very quickly while others would rather die than leave, considering both were put through the same indoctrination programs? What is it that makes some people hop from one cult to another over many years of their lives, always seeking something purer, more perfect, more complete? What is it that makes some people who never join an actual cult, invent pseudo-cults out of their own lives, revolving around their jobs or their relationships or their pastimes? What do you think it is that makes one person more susceptible to cult indoctrination than another person?

I think it is the inherent functioning of their minds -- a person's thinking either trends towards fundamentalism/extreme-purist views and obsessive attachments, or it doesn't.

Similarly, a person is either an abuser or they are not. Even in a society that is run by abusers and supports and rewards those who abuse others, there are still going to be large numbers of people who do not abuse anyone else -- who don't beat, or imprison, or murder -- because it is just not in their nature to do so. And even in a society that denounces and punishes abusers, there will still be people who will abuse others in their lives -- lovers, women, children, even just animals if that's all they can get -- because that impulse to demonstrate power through violence is a part of their nature.

I agree in part, but I feel your solution is too narrow in its scope. A strong feminist movement might help the situation, but you are still only confronting a single symptom, not the larger cause.

The real problem is religious fundimentalism in its various forms, which is best countered by secular education and encouraging the people to take back power from bigoted religious authorities.
A big step would be to get people literate and reading their own holy books themselves as well as teaching them critical thinking skills. This allows people to see that what their holy men say isn't the only way to interpret what is written and that the fundamentalist way isn't the only way.

But feminist movements do go a long way to helping women in such situations. Of course, encouraging female literacy is good for helping these movements.

It's times like this that make me wonder whether we should have kept these places as colonies for a while longer and imposed our values on them from above through years of foreign-driven economic, educational, and social development.

Well, Pakistan was a colony from its inception. It only ever existed as a part of India before that. And of course, because of the situation, only the psycho hardliners wanted to stay, or go there to make it what it is. We never really colonized Turkey (in the last couple of hundred years), and it's pretty sensible.

Well, that's pretty stupid... because "honor killings" of some variety or another occur across a variety of cultural, religious, and national differences.
Yes, but THIS particular variety is pretty much confined to the Muslim world, so far as I have ever heard. If a teenage boy gets a teenage girl pregnant, the outraged father will shoot THE BOY in Sicily; in Pakistan he'll shoot his own daughter. (In Alaska, he'll force the boy to come to Minnesota and grin in front of a thousand news cameras).

I'm surprised the cultural relativists aren't out in force saying that their culture is equally valid to ours, we shouldn't arrogantly assume that ours is superior and we should always respect their traditional ways.

And I'm sure you can show that this kind of response is the norm for NSG?

Well?

How much have you seen of cult indoctrination methods, and even more to the point, have much have you seen of anti-cult dis-indoctrination methods, and how much have you seen of the people who join cults, before, during and after their cult-member stints?


Cult indoctrination methods, the successful ones mostly. Based on what I've seen, they mostly focus on two things. The first being to either isolate or get a group to question something taken for granted as normal. Getting the minds to play tricks on them that is. Before they can come to an answer to explain it on their own, the cultists generally then supply their own answers.

Deprogramming methods are the converse. They usually isolate the cultist and create situations which force the cultist to begin to question their beliefs. Rather than supply answers, which cultists will reject dogmatically, deprogrammers simply create an environment and leave it at that.


Do you know that the people who became indoctrinated into cults were not fundamentalist-minded individuals to begin with, before they ever heard of the cult they joined? Of the relatively small number of people (compared to total world population) who join cults, what is it that makes some of them want to leave the cult very quickly while others would rather die than leave, considering both were put through the same indoctrination programs? What is it that makes some people hop from one cult to another over many years of their lives, always seeking something purer, more perfect, more complete? What is it that makes some people who never join an actual cult, invent pseudo-cults out of their own lives, revolving around their jobs or their relationships or their pastimes? What do you think it is that makes one person more susceptible to cult indoctrination than another person?


Mental maturity I suspect. As well as the amount of nurturing towards a more questioning or accepting mind.

In either case, I am not saying cult methods outright will work. But they do show some groundwork towards creating a method of near universal indoctrination.

Come to think of it, North Korea is a very interesting social case that seems to prove that with the correct type of indoctrination, any sort of mindset can be achieved, the dissenters likely to be among the small minority so long as external scarcities are kept at bay.

Although, of course, this merely replaces one sort of fundamentalist thinking with another. But taken at its bare roots, almost any sort of thinking can be considered to be fundamentalist thinking.

I'm inclined to disagree. It is my personal belief that fundamentalism, tribalism, all these sorts of "isms", are merely vehicles or modes of expression for a kind of mindset that is inherent in the human population.

In every population group of several hundred people or more, you are going to get percentages that fall into various groups: liberal, conservative, authoritarian, egalitarian, aggressive, timid, active, passive, violent, non-violent, etc, etc, etc. Decades of sociological and psychological studies have suggested very strongly that such traits are aspects of personality types and are far more nature than they are nurture because they typically occur in the same proportions in every kind of societal group regardless of culture, religion, or social structure. They originate in human beings and only find means and styles of expression in culture.

Unfortunately, I think that international statistics on rape and other kinds of sex-based crimes show that the urge to commit sex-based violence and abuse is also not culturally determined. It happens everywhere, and it seems to me that the only difference culture makes is in whether the perpetrator is allowed to get away with it or not, and in how entrenched cycles of violence and abuse will be within families.

Get rid of fundamentalism, and you won't have made even a dent in the sex-based abuse/crimes situation.

Oh, by the way, a tendency towards fundamentalist thinking is another thing that seems to have its most basic roots in personality rather than culture. This is why I don't think you can get rid of it. Fundamentalists are born, not made. Eliminate religious fundamentalism, and they'll just get fundamentalist about something else.



If you could quote statistics, please?

Personally I think that while their would still be many terrible sex crimes without fundimentalism, you would see a decrease, partly because as you said the culture influences weather the perpetrators are brought to justice in a society.

And it is rediculous to suggest that people are nessisarily born fundimentalist. Their are plenty of documented cases of cult brainwashing for example. And don't try to argue that Iran, or America, has an equal level of fundimentalism compared to Canada or Europe. If you do want to argue that, you better be able to link to some statistics that actually support your claim.

People may be born with an inclination towards fundimentalism, but education does make a difference.

UNDER THE HEADING OF "HE ASKED FOR IT" :D:
Seeing as how systems are limited in resources, and people are selfishness is an innate aspect of the human species, I really don't see how this win-win situation of yours can come to be. Why don't you give an example, and we shall see if we can poke a hole in it?
Per your request, here is information on what I mean by "win-win" situations, enjoy:

INTRO: My primary source for supporting information is a group called Beyond Intractability. They are an educational project seeking to disseminate information about techniques of conflict resolution. They discuss all kinds of negotiating methods and situations, but their primary focus is on dealing with public policy issues and international conflicts. I will be quoting mostly from their site.

This is Beyond Intractabilitiy's home page, so you can browse it yourself:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/index.jsp?nid=1

This is their "about us" page, so you can learn what their goals and viewpoint are:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/about/about.jsp

Here are articles about case studies in mediation and conflict resolution:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/action/essays.jsp?nid=5100

NOTE: This is not a "quick overview" reference. There is a lot to read here. I'm just sticking bookmarks in the textbook, as it were.

FIRST: Most conflicts are based on two or more parties having conflicting desires. When such conflicts occur, there are several approaches to how to resolve them.

This article, plus the links within it, describe various kinds of negotiation/mediation/conflict resolution techniques:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/win-lose/

In particular:
Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are game theory terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game or dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, how each side perceives their outcome relative to their standing before the game. For example, a "win" results when the outcome of a negotiation is better than expected, a "loss" when the outcome is worse than expected. Two people may receive the same outcome in measurable terms, say $10, but for one side that may be a loss, while for the other it is a win. In other words, expectations determine one's perception of any given result.

Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily. The process of integrative bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation, win-win outcomes.

Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily. Distributive bargaining processes, based on a principle of competition between participants, tend to end in win-lose outcomes.

Lose-lose means that all parties end up being worse off. An example of this would be a budget-cutting negotiation in which all parties lose money. In some lose-lose situations, all parties understand that losses are unavoidable and that they will be evenly distributed. In such situations, lose-lose outcomes can be preferable to win-lose outcomes because the distribution is at least considered to be fair.[1]

And this article talks specifically about integrative bargaining, which we may call the "win-win method":
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interest-based_bargaining/

Integrative bargaining approaches conflict from a relatively non-competitive viewpoint. Rather than focus on the issue or resource the conflict is about, this approach focuses more on the needs/interests of the parties in conflict. By identifying the true interests of the parties, this method gives a broader view of the issue and encourages more creative thinking in how to meet those needs.

The classic hypothetical example is of two little girls fighting over an orange. Each girl wants the whole orange. Their mother steps in to resolve the conflict.

In your comment above, you said "Seeing as how systems are limited in resources..." This reflects a worldview similar to that of distributive bargaining, based on competition among the conficting parties over a limited resource (two girls, one orange). In the hypothetical, the mother, using the distributive approach, cuts the orange in half and gives one half to each girl. Now they each have half of what they wanted and both are only partially pleased.

However, the integrative bargaining approach first asks why each girl wants the orange. Often, people will lay competing claims to the same resource, but they need it for different reasons and will use it in different ways, which very often turn out not to conflict with each other at all. In the hypothetical, the mother, using the integrative approach, asks the girls what they want the orange for. One girl wants to squeeze it for juice to drink. The other girl wants the orange peel to use in baking cookies. These needs actually do not conflict, so by peeling the orange and giving the meat and juice to the one girl and the peel to the other, both girls are now given 100% of what they wanted. The conflict is resolved in a win-win way.

The key is understanding the needs behind each of the conflicting demands in order to find out if there is another way of fulfilling them. If there is, then both parties can be satisfied. Both can win.

In addition, when the parties sit down to explore their true needs and interests, especially if they do this together, it often occurs that they will not only find a way to get what they need without conflict, they will even find a way to combine their interests to produce greater results for both of them. So the integrative approach can sometimes produce greater benefits than working alone could.

The basic difference between the integrative and distributive approaches is that the distributive approach only sees a pie that can be sliced up in a particular way, while the integrative approach sees a pie that can be transformed in number of ways to make it applicable to a number of uses, and which can even be made bigger than it started out as, if handled right.

SECOND: The integrative and distributive approaches, although functionally very different, are not necessarily opposed. In fact, they usually end up both being used in the same negotiations.

Using Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Together

Although distributive bargaining is frequently seen as the opposite of integrative bargaining, the two are not mutually exclusive. Distributive bargaining plays a role in integrative bargaining, because ultimately "the pie" has to be split up.

Integrative bargaining is a good way to make the pie (joint value) as large as it possibly can be, but ultimately the parties must distribute the value that was created through negotiation. They must agree on who gets what. The idea behind integrative bargaining is that this last step will not be difficult once the parties reach that stage. This is because the interest-based approach is supposed to help create a cooperative working relationship. Theoretically, the parties should know who wants what by the time they split the pie.[3]

Or to put what I said before another way: Integrative bargaining makes the pie that distributive bargaining slices up.

THIRD: I'd like to refer back to the first quote from the source site, where it says:

Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are game theory terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game or dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, how each side perceives their outcome relative to their standing before the game. For example, a "win" results when the outcome of a negotiation is better than expected, a "loss" when the outcome is worse than expected. Two people may receive the same outcome in measurable terms, say $10, but for one side that may be a loss, while for the other it is a win. In other words, expectations determine one's perception of any given result.

I believe this is absolutely vital to any practical application of the integrative "win-win" approach. No matter how limited the resources may be in real terms, each side must walk away feeling that they are better off. In order to accomplish this, the underlying needs behind the conflict must be identified, because the solution to satisfying those needs may come in a very different form than the conflicting parties expect. Sometimes, reality forces a situation where one or the other party simply cannot have whatever it is they are fighting over, and if you are still going to have both sides walk away happy, you are going to have to understand their underlying needs/problems very well in order to figure out a way for them to benefit that does not involve getting the thing the conflict is about.

For instance, in the thread topic conflict: A society that tolerates honor killings may have all kinds of reasons for tolerating it and get into full-scale conflict if others demand that they stop tolerating it. However, there is just no way for the rest of the world to tolerate it, so them not being told and pressured to make it stop is just not an option. How then, to get them to stop tolerating it, per the demands of others, yet still have them feel like they did not lose but, rather, came out ahead by complying? (Remember, the more they feel like they are benefitting, the more committed to the change they will be.)

This article from the case studies (linked above) offers an interesting idea:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/case_studies/women_afghanistan.jsp?nid=6770

This article talks about a program empowering women in Afghanistan to "come out of the shadows" as it were and express their desires for their nation's and society's future. It talks particularly about Afghani women exercising the right to vote, despite anti-election pressures from local warlords.

This is precisely the kind of thing that can be used to show how stopping one kind of behavior can unlock greater benefits than the "tradition" originally gave. The social benefits of an empowered society can be illustrated to the general population by examples such as in this article, tied directly into public and personal needs the old tradition was not meeting.

In such a way, giving up a tradition of socially isolating women can be transformed from a negative loss imposed by foreign pressure against the people's will, to a postive gain taken on voluntarily by the people themselves in order to get something better.

FOURTH: Now obviously, not every situation is going to be amenable to an integrative approach, nor able to produce a "win-win" result. But the benefits of this approach -- conflict resolution; greater commitment to the agreement by the parties; goodwill among the parties that may carry over into future interactions; increased value in the results -- are significant enough that I believe it should always be the first thing we try before anything else.

However, it does require that the negotiators who use this approach must have a certain kind of mindset, as outlined here:

Character. The foundation of Win/Win
Integrity. The value we place on ourselves.
Maturity. The balance between courage and consideration.
Abundance Mentality. There is plenty out there for everybody.
Relationships. Courtesy, respect and appreciation for the other person
http://www.leaderu.com/cl-institute/habits/habit4.html
(from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, or Effectively High People, or the Effective Habits of 7 High People, or whatever the hell that book is.)

Abundance Mentality is pretty much the opposite of the mentality suggested in your comment: "Seeing as how systems are limited in resources, and people are selfishness is an innate aspect of the human species..."

Your comment suggests what we might call a "Scarcity Mentality" that locks people into competition and, inevitably, conflict. It assumes that the pie on the table is not only the only pie available, it is the only thing that can answer the needs of the parties, and there is only enough to fully answer the needs of one party.

The "Abundance Mentality," on the other hand does not assume that the pie on the table is all there is to answer the needs of the parties. Instead, it assumes that, in an infinite universe, there are infinite options and possibilities, and that no matter what you want, there is a way to get it. It might not be found in that particular pie on that particular table, but a solution is out there, waiting to be found. The trick of finding it is not to obsess over the pie on the table, but rather to think long and hard about what it is you really need and why, and then look for anything that will give you that, without regard for what kind of pie it might be.

For instance, in reference to the topic conflict: The Pakistani people need to ask themselves what they really, truly want and need and then ask themselves if honor killings really give it to them, and at what cost, and whether there might not be something else in the world that will give them the same or greater benefit at less cost -- and whether changing their stance on honor killings and adopting a new kind of honor-protection system will not only give them the benefit of having honor but also the added benefits of the goodwill of the nations they want to do business with and rise in status among. If the Pakistani people -- even if just on a family-by-family, village-by-village basis -- can make such a change in their thinking, then a win-win result will come about, because the women will win by no longer being trapped in a society that will not protect them, and the society will win by advancing in the social status that is what gives value to their idea of "honor" in the first place.

FIFTH: The thing to remember is that all negotiations start from a position of disappointment. If there is no disappointment, then there is no negotiation because in a zero-disappointment situation, there is no need to negotiate anything. It's just, "I can has cheezburger?" "Yes, u can has cheezburger." "Kthxbai."

Negotiation happens when "I can has cheezburger?" gets a "Hm...um...you know, not so much" answer.

Every negotiation starts from this point: "What do you want?" "I want XYZ." "Well, you can't have that. What else will make you happy?"

For the parties in a conflict, knowing that there is an obstacle to them getting what they want makes them unhappy right from the get-go, before they even sit down at the bargaining table. Finding a way to bring them to a point of feeling happy again is key not only to getting them to negotiate at all, but also to getting them to stick to the negotiated agreement. If you can figure out a way to make them gain happiness out of doing what you want them to do, you will get a much better result than if you used force.

You will note, finally, that nothing in my explanation of "win-win" reasoning requires people not to be selfish. People can be entirely self-serving if they like. They just have to not be short-sighted in their selfishness.

Cult indoctrination methods, the successful ones mostly. Based on what I've seen, they mostly focus on two things. The first being to either isolate or get a group to question something taken for granted as normal. Getting the minds to play tricks on them that is. Before they can come to an answer to explain it on their own, the cultists generally then supply their own answers.

Deprogramming methods are the converse. They usually isolate the cultist and create situations which force the cultist to begin to question their beliefs. Rather than supply answers, which cultists will reject dogmatically, deprogrammers simply create an environment and leave it at that.



Mental maturity I suspect. As well as the amount of nurturing towards a more questioning or accepting mind.

In either case, I am not saying cult methods outright will work. But they do show some groundwork towards creating a method of near universal indoctrination.

Come to think of it, North Korea is a very interesting social case that seems to prove that with the correct type of indoctrination, any sort of mindset can be achieved, the dissenters likely to be among the small minority so long as external scarcities are kept at bay.

Although, of course, this merely replaces one sort of fundamentalist thinking with another.
This is the primary objection I have to the idea that fundamentalism can be eliminated, which frankly, your other comments do not address.

But taken at its bare roots, almost any sort of thinking can be considered to be fundamentalist thinking.
Sorry, but I think that's an equivocation.

If you could quote statistics, please?
Sorry, no I can't. I was referring to many different studies conducted over the past 50+ years, and I don't happen to have a handy list of references for their results.

Personally I think that while their would still be many terrible sex crimes without fundimentalism, you would see a decrease, partly because as you said the culture influences weather the perpetrators are brought to justice in a society.
Yes, but that doesn't address how you are going to get rid of fundamentalism.

And it is rediculous to suggest that people are nessisarily born fundimentalist. Their are plenty of documented cases of cult brainwashing for example.
And are we certain that these documented cases are of people who showed no inclination towards fundamentalist thinking beforehand? Are there documented cases of successful brainwashing of people whose minds worked entirely differently from a fundamentalist's before the brainwashing?

I'm not going to ask you to post some of these cases, since I can't post numbers in re my statements.

And don't try to argue that Iran, or America, has an equal level of fundimentalism compared to Canada or Europe. If you do want to argue that, you better be able to link to some statistics that actually support your claim.
Don't worry, I don't attack strawmen. I did not say that, and I'm not going to say it. But I'm also not going to say that I know for a fact that the fundamentalists in Iran or America would not be fundamentalists if they had grown up in any other country.

In Iran, fundamentalists hold political and legal power. Failure to comply with their rules can have bad consequences. Does that make all law-abiding or law-fearing citizens fundamentalists? Or does it make them prisoners of fundamentalism? What about those who emmigrate from Iran to get away from the fundamentalists? Are they also fundamentalists, because they are products of that culture and are Muslims, too?

In the US, there are hundreds of active religions, yet only a few are fundamentalist, and all Americans, including the fundamentalists, live in a culture of secular law, secular government, secular education and secular popular culture. So tell me, what caused that fundamentalism in those churches but not others, and how is the society supposed to get rid of it?

People may be born with an inclination towards fundimentalism, but education does make a difference.
It makes a difference much of the time, but not 100% of the time.

Sorry, no I can't. I was referring to many different studies conducted over the past 50+ years, and I don't happen to have a handy list of references for their results.

That's reasonable enough I suppose, though claims in a debate are usually granted more weight if supported by verifiable evidence.

[/Quote]Yes, but that doesn't address how you are going to get rid of fundamentalism.[/Quote]

No, because that was not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was weather sexsism or fundimentalism was the root cause of this kind of violence.

[/Quote]And are we certain that these documented cases are of people who showed no inclination towards fundamentalist thinking beforehand? Are there documented cases of successful brainwashing of people whose minds worked entirely differently from a fundamentalist's before the brainwashing?[/Quote]

I did acknowledge that some people may have a predisposision towards fundimentalism. However, I pointed out that education can make a difference, and that going after fundimentalism has some merrit. If education could not influence people's behavior, there would be no more point going after anything else than there would be going after fundimentalism. Also, I doubt you can prove that their is one type of mind, or even several, that is predisposed towards fundimentalism and which all or even most fundimentalists possess from birth.

[/Quote]I'm not going to ask you to post some of these cases, since I can't post numbers in re my statements.[/Quote]

I'm sure I could post examples, but I don't have the time right now. In any case, my argument is no weaker than your's on those grounds.


[/Quote]Don't worry, I don't attack strawmen. I did not say that, and I'm not going to say it. But I'm also not going to say that I know for a fact that the fundamentalists in Iran or America would not be fundamentalists if they had grown up in any other country.

But you did suggest that they would have been, by saying that people are born fundimentalists. In which case you must ask yourself how, if people are born fundimentalist, their are so many more in certain countries than others. Their are some very serious implications to suggesting that there is a biological, as opposed to social answer to that question.

And I know you didn't explicitely say that Iran and America were less fundimentalist. But it is an implication of arguing that fundimentalists are born, not culturally created. Unless of course you are arguing that Americans and Iranians are in this respect gennerally biologically inferior, in which case you better be able to show some evidence. Your failiure to say that the numbers are equal, indeed, suggests an illogic in your argument.

In Iran, fundamentalists hold political and legal power. Failure to comply with their rules can have bad consequences. Does that make all law-abiding or law-fearing citizens fundamentalists? Or does it make them prisoners of fundamentalism? What about those who emmigrate from Iran to get away from the fundamentalists? Are they also fundamentalists, because they are products of that culture and are Muslims, too?[/Quote]

All valid points as far as I can see. However, none of this means that we can disregard culture as a cause of fundimentalism.

[/Quote]In the US, there are hundreds of active religions, yet only a few are fundamentalist, and all Americans, including the fundamentalists, live in a culture of secular law, secular government, secular education and secular popular culture. So tell me, what caused that fundamentalism in those churches but not others, and how is the society supposed to get rid of it?

Actually, a significant percentage of Americans support policies that amount to a sever errosion of the sepperation of church and state. I am not possitive, but I beleive a majority beleive in Creationism or "Intelligent design." Mike Hukabee, a fairly successful candadite in the Republican Primary this last spring, wanted laws to be in line with the Bible.

As for what causes the fundimentalism, I do beleive it is partly cultural, as is to be expected when the children of fundimentalist families are brought up being told every day by the people they are evolved to love and depend on that these beleifs are the truth, that they will be damned for eternity if they think otherwise, and perhaps that they will be disowned by their familly if they come to think otherwise. Education offers an opportunity to combat this brainwashing, however, this debate is on the question of weather fundimentalism is the problem, more than it is about how to deal with that problem.

It makes a difference much of the time, but not 100% of the time.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for conceeding this debate.

My entire point is that fundimentalism is part of the problem and can and must be delt with. As for weather fundimentalism is the real basis of the problem or mearly a symptom, its an interesting debate but one which may be impossible to solve conclusively. However, in order to adress the route problems, fundimentalist thinking sometimes must first be stripped away.

That's reasonable enough I suppose, though claims in a debate are usually granted more weight if supported by verifiable evidence.
It wasn't a claim. It was a mention of a general observation.

No, because that was not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was weather sexsism or fundimentalism was the root cause of this kind of violence.
In the context of which one to address, i.e. get rid of. You are one of the people who has talked about eliminating the effect of fundamentalism.

To be clear, I believe BOTH sexism and fundamentalism are at the root of it. The question, to me, is this: Is the problem coming from sexism and fundamentalism imposed by society upon people, or imposed by people upon society? In other words, is it a top-down problem or a bottom-up problem? My personal view is that it is a bottom-up problem, so while there is benefit in changing out the social power structure, that in and of itself is not likely to eliminate the problem.


I did acknowledge that some people may have a predisposision towards fundimentalism. However, I pointed out that education can make a difference, and that going after fundimentalism has some merrit. If education could not influence people's behavior, there would be no more point going after anything else than there would be going after fundimentalism. Also, I doubt you can prove that their is one type of mind, or even several, that is predisposed towards fundimentalism and which all or even most fundimentalists possess from birth.
Well, if I could, it would be called a "fundamentalist personality" type, don't you think? It is frustrating that I do not have online sources for this because I have done some study of this matter over many years. I've been interested in all forms of extremism, including religious fundamentalism, since the 1980s, which saw the rise of both the kind of terrorism the world is dealing with now and the kind of Christian fundamentalism that Americans are dealing with now. I wish I could prove to you that fundamentalist thinking is part of a set of personality types.

I'm sure I could post examples, but I don't have the time right now. In any case, my argument is no weaker than your's on those grounds.

But you did suggest that they would have been, by saying that people are born fundimentalists.
Where did I suggest that? I said fundamentalists are born, not made. How does changing the place they are born affect that? It would be similar to saying left-handed Frenchmen would have become right-handed if they had been born in Italy.

In which case you must ask yourself how, if people are born fundimentalist, their are so many more in certain countries than others. Their are some very serious implications to suggesting that there is a biological, as opposed to social answer to that question.
I already addressed that by asking you if you are really sure there are more actual fundamentalists, as opposed to people who conform to a fundamentalist system in order to fit in/avoid bad consequences in a country that happens to be ruled by fundamentalists. I meant to suggest that the numbers of conformists may seem to inflate the numbers of actual fundamentalists.

And I know you didn't explicitely say that Iran and America were less fundimentalist. But it is an implication of arguing that fundimentalists are born, not culturally created. Unless of course you are arguing that Americans and Iranians are in this respect gennerally biologically inferior, in which case you better be able to show some evidence. Your failiure to say that the numbers are equal, indeed, suggests an illogic in your argument.
OK, now you're just talking bullshit. I challenge you to justify this "interpretation" of anything I said. Lay out your reasoning, or else I'll conclude you are erecting a whole collection of strawmen.

In Iran, fundamentalists hold political and legal power. Failure to comply with their rules can have bad consequences. Does that make all law-abiding or law-fearing citizens fundamentalists? Or does it make them prisoners of fundamentalism? What about those who emmigrate from Iran to get away from the fundamentalists? Are they also fundamentalists, because they are products of that culture and are Muslims, too?

All valid points as far as I can see. However, none of this means that we can disregard culture as a cause of fundimentalism.
Then you must now show your valid points in favor of blaming culture for fundamentalism.


Actually, a significant percentage of Americans support policies that amount to a sever errosion of the sepperation of church and state. I am not possitive, but I beleive a majority beleive in Creationism or "Intelligent design." Mike Hukabee, a fairly successful candadite in the Republican Primary this last spring, wanted laws to be in line with the Bible.
Is it my turn now to point out how your lack of factual supporting data undermines the credibility of your argument, especially one that contains the underscored words?

All you are doing here is dodging my question, and in the process presenting your personal suppositions as if they were fact. Hell, you're not even making a passing reference to the existence of studies you might have read once. Even I did that much.

Nothing that you say contradicts what I said.

As for what causes the fundimentalism, I do beleive it is partly cultural, as is to be expected when the children of fundimentalist families are brought up being told every day by the people they are evolved to love and depend on that these beleifs are the truth, that they will be damned for eternity if they think otherwise, and perhaps that they will be disowned by their familly if they come to think otherwise. Education offers an opportunity to combat this brainwashing, however, this debate is on the question of weather fundimentalism is the problem, more than it is about how to deal with that problem.
Then account for the children of fundamentalists who don't become fundamentalists themselves, who leave their family's church and do not join another fundamentalist group.

Also, if fundamentalism is the problem in the kinds of sex-based abuses the OP talks about, then account for similar levels of sex-based violence, and similar "she dissed me/us" motives, that are widespread in many places but have nothing to do with religion, fundamentalist or otherwise.



Thank you for conceeding this debate.
I am not conceding the debate. Nor am I conceding the point. I am merely letting you know that my argument is not that education/socialization has zero effect, only that it is not the sole root cause of such offenses.

My entire point is that fundimentalism is part of the problem and can and must be delt with. As for weather fundimentalism is the real basis of the problem or mearly a symptom, its an interesting debate but one which may be impossible to solve conclusively. However, in order to adress the route problems, fundimentalist thinking sometimes must first be stripped away.
Then we're back to what you said earlier we weren't discussing -- how to get rid of fundamentalism. And while we're at it, how you would do that on a cultural level without resorting to the kinds of tactics that you said earlier in the thread would be not good.

Also, please be careful how you separate points to respond to, and please do not put your replies all in bold. I took me longer to get this post formatted correctly than it did to compose it.

UNDER THE HEADING OF "HE ASKED FOR IT" :D:

Per your request, here is information on what I mean by "win-win" situations, enjoy:

INTRO:

*snippage*

A lot of reading to do, but I get the basic gist of it. I'll look this over.


The classic hypothetical example is of two little girls fighting over an orange. Each girl wants the whole orange. Their mother steps in to resolve the conflict.

In your comment above, you said "Seeing as how systems are limited in resources..." This reflects a worldview similar to that of distributive bargaining, based on competition among the conficting parties over a limited resource (two girls, one orange). In the hypothetical, the mother, using the distributive approach, cuts the orange in half and gives one half to each girl. Now they each have half of what they wanted and both are only partially pleased.

However, the integrative bargaining approach first asks why each girl wants the orange. Often, people will lay competing claims to the same resource, but they need it for different reasons and will use it in different ways, which very often turn out not to conflict with each other at all. In the hypothetical, the mother, using the integrative approach, asks the girls what they want the orange for. One girl wants to squeeze it for juice to drink. The other girl wants the orange peel to use in baking cookies. These needs actually do not conflict, so by peeling the orange and giving the meat and juice to the one girl and the peel to the other, both girls are now given 100% of what they wanted. The conflict is resolved in a win-win way.

However, this assumes that in the exchange, two parties operate in a vacuum, and that they want a different part of a resource.

Let us take a slightly different example.

Let us say, a certain Saudi family, and America. Both want one thing. Wealth. Saudi Arabia has oil. America gives the Saudi family money, arms packages and assorted military means, and it gets oil in return, creating wealth. This seems like a win-win situation, but only if you consider it the two parties operating in a vacuum. The people beneath the Saudi family are not likely to have it very well, especially in certain quarters. On the other side of the fence, American citizenry may not benefit from the side effects of unilateral support for a widely unpopular regime.

Or what of the numerous dictatorships in Africa, supported and protected by the major powers of the world in exchange for mineral wealth?

Someone wins, someone loses, the loser isn't necessarily part of the deal. That is my point. There is always a loser. Always will be.


The basic difference between the integrative and distributive approaches is that the distributive approach only sees a pie that can be sliced up in a particular way, while the integrative approach sees a pie that can be transformed in number of ways to make it applicable to a number of uses, and which can even be made bigger than it started out as, if handled right.


The flaw with this reasoning is that it assumes a universality of division of a resource. What happens if it isn't? Say country B wants oil from country X for energy production while country A wants it for fueling heavy transportation, but country X wants to keep it for it's oil for producing c. The pie can be divided, but you can't give everyone all they want since they all want the same thing, and alternatives will incur further cost on their wants. Then what?


Or to put what I said before another way: Integrative bargaining makes the pie that distributive bargaining slices up.


Usually at the expense of the four and twenty black birds that were used to bake the pie.


THIRD: I'd like to refer back to the first quote from the source site, where it says:


Changing their view, so you've said. Which means changing their perceptions. Even if it works, it doesn't mean they didn't lose. They just stopped noticing the loss.

Practical? Most likely, but still a loss, and while they can accept it, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't feel that they've lost. You would have to change perceptions and mindsets at a fundamental level, and you've made arguments against that being a possibility.


Sometimes, reality forces a situation where one or the other party simply cannot have whatever it is they are fighting over, and if you are still going to have both sides walk away happy, you are going to have to understand their underlying needs/problems very well in order to figure out a way for them to benefit that does not involve getting the thing the conflict is about.

Solomon burns the baby and gives the two insurance money?


For instance, in the thread topic conflict: A society that tolerates honor killings may have all kinds of reasons for tolerating it and get into full-scale conflict if others demand that they stop tolerating it. However, there is just no way for the rest of the world to tolerate it, so them not being told and pressured to make it stop is just not an option. How then, to get them to stop tolerating it, per the demands of others, yet still have them feel like they did not lose but, rather, came out ahead by complying? (Remember, the more they feel like they are benefitting, the more committed to the change they will be.)

This article from the case studies (linked above) offers an interesting idea:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/case_studies/women_afghanistan.jsp?nid=6770

This article talks about a program empowering women in Afghanistan to "come out of the shadows" as it were and express their desires for their nation's and society's future. It talks particularly about Afghani women exercising the right to vote, despite anti-election pressures from local warlords.

This is precisely the kind of thing that can be used to show how stopping one kind of behavior can unlock greater benefits than the "tradition" originally gave. The social benefits of an empowered society can be illustrated to the general population by examples such as in this article, tied directly into public and personal needs the old tradition was not meeting.

In such a way, giving up a tradition of socially isolating women can be transformed from a negative loss imposed by foreign pressure against the people's will, to a postive gain taken on voluntarily by the people themselves in order to get something better.


Of course this isn't going to happen without someone losing. Most likely the old oppressors who don't or won't see anything good coming out of it, and a new breed of "women should be chattel" numskulls.

It's not like the Western world with it's "equality" is lacking in numbers of anti-feminists and other gender supremacists now isn't it?


FOURTH: Now obviously, not every situation is going to be amenable to an integrative approach, nor able to produce a "win-win" result. But the benefits of this approach -- conflict resolution; greater commitment to the agreement by the parties; goodwill among the parties that may carry over into future interactions; increased value in the results -- are significant enough that I believe it should always be the first thing we try before anything else.

All well and good, but you already agree that win-win results aren't guaranteed, and I interject that they are almost impossible to achieve.

Keep in mind that I think it's commendable you think this way, but I simply do not see some aspects of human nature which gave rise to the problem of win-lose to begin with, not ideas, but nature, as impossible to remove.


Your comment suggests what we might call a "Scarcity Mentality" that locks people into competition and, inevitably, conflict. It assumes that the pie on the table is not only the only pie available, it is the only thing that can answer the needs of the parties, and there is only enough to fully answer the needs of one party.

It's undeniable that in this limited biosphere, resources are noticeably limited. Not factually limited, such as say, the resources of a galaxy, which is so much to be practically unlimited, but noticeably limited in that people can see how much is left and that it isn't enough to satisfy demand.

The scarcity mentality thus, is a very widespread one.


The "Abundance Mentality," on the other hand does not assume that the pie on the table is all there is to answer the needs of the parties. Instead, it assumes that, in an infinite universe, there are infinite options and possibilities, and that no matter what you want, there is a way to get it. It might not be found in that particular pie on that particular table, but a solution is out there, waiting to be found. The trick of finding it is not to obsess over the pie on the table, but rather to think long and hard about what it is you really need and why, and then look for anything that will give you that, without regard for what kind of pie it might be.


This is the problem with your idea. It assumes that there might be something out there to solve the lack of cake- I mean pie. Maybe there very well is. But one of the aspects of humanity is that the vast majority of them are incapable of taking the long view, or if they are, are not willing to sacrifice the present for it. In some cases, the long view is simply unacceptable by the sheer amount of obstacles that must be surmounted in order for it to be even viable.

In the abundance mentality, we do what we must, because we can, for the good of all.

Except for the ones who are dead.

But that's not going to work. Because as I've said, selfishness is an innate part of human nature, and that means accepting the loss of cak-pie!, is not going to happen most of the time.


For instance, in reference to the topic conflict: The Pakistani people need to ask themselves what they really, truly want and need and then ask themselves if honor killings really give it to them, and at what cost, and whether there might not be something else in the world that will give them the same or greater benefit at less cost -- and whether changing their stance on honor killings and adopting a new kind of honor-protection system will not only give them the benefit of having honor but also the added benefits of the goodwill of the nations they want to do business with and rise in status among.

Want != need. It's very rare when want = something you can't do without.

That being said, look at how widespread the mentality is. Look at how deeply entrenched it is in the society. Even the police is complicit, and the army won't touch it. Rooting this out short of extreme measures is as likely to succeed as emptying an ocean with a spoon.

As for what do they get out of it? A quick an easy way of casting blame, a sense of male empowerment, and an outlet for violence all rolled into one. Trying to change that means changing the environment, attitudes, education, and active suppression of the old guard who will do their damndest to make sure it continues.

You want to stop this kind of thing? Then the first step is the punishment of the guilty, which isn't going to happen without someone losing their heads. Literally. So your win-win situation doesn't work.

Now your points of data make a beautiful line, but it's not released on time. Maybe some 500 years ago or more when the culture began to take root. But not now. You can put out a match with a puff of breath, but not a forest fire.


For the parties in a conflict, knowing that there is an obstacle to them getting what they want makes them unhappy right from the get-go, before they even sit down at the bargaining table. Finding a way to bring them to a point of feeling happy again is key not only to getting them to negotiate at all, but also to getting them to stick to the negotiated agreement. If you can figure out a way to make them gain happiness out of doing what you want them to do, you will get a much better result than if you used force.


And if I had a mind control device, things could go a lot better too. It's all well and good to talk about finding a way to make them happy doing what you want them to do, but that's not always the case.


You will note, finally, that nothing in my explanation of "win-win" reasoning requires people not to be selfish. People can be entirely self-serving if they like. They just have to not be short-sighted in their selfishness.

Which requires some sort of shelving of selfishness for an indeterminate time.

This is the primary objection I have to the idea that fundamentalism can be eliminated, which frankly, your other comments do not address.

Because at the end of the day, I don't really think there is a mindset that doesn't follow one particular set of fundamental principles or another.


Sorry, but I think that's an equivocation.

Is it? Fundamentalism is about adherence to a set of principles, not necessarily religious ones.

A lot of reading to do, but I get the basic gist of it. I'll look this over.



However, this assumes that in the exchange, two parties operate in a vacuum, and that they want a different part of a resource.
It's called a hypothetical and it's purpose was to illustrate just one point in the overall subject. If it was supposed to be inclusive I wouldn't have kept on typing all those other words, too.

Let us take a slightly different example.

Let us say, a certain Saudi family, and America. Both want one thing. Wealth. Saudi Arabia has oil. America gives the Saudi family money, arms packages and assorted military means, and it gets oil in return, creating wealth. This seems like a win-win situation, but only if you consider it the two parties operating in a vacuum. The people beneath the Saudi family are not likely to have it very well, especially in certain quarters. On the other side of the fence, American citizenry may not benefit from the side effects of unilateral support for a widely unpopular regime.

Or what of the numerous dictatorships in Africa, supported and protected by the major powers of the world in exchange for mineral wealth?

Someone wins, someone loses, the loser isn't necessarily part of the deal. That is my point. There is always a loser. Always will be.
This is just a closed-minded view. You are entitled to your opinion, but I gave you plenty of evidence that your categorical statement above is just plain not factually true.

First of all, I'm going to remind you that the paragraphs of my post do not exist in a vacuum, either. As big as it was, it was all one thing and must be taken as a whole, including the sections about the limits of the various approaches, including mine. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I am talking in the same absolutes as you seem to be.

OK, in that context, let's look at your two examples:

First, let's consider two Saudi families: Both contain members who have the stated desire to rule Arabia, and they are in conflict. One family currently is ruling Arabia. They secured that rule with the help of foreign intervention and have maintained it by dealings with foreign powers ever since. The other family did not succeed over the years in gaining sufficient foreign support to make a bid to take the throne, so the family member who currently would like to take over Arabia decides to change his tactic and attack those foreign powers who support his rivals. No matter what happens between those two parties, the third party -- the foreigners who get attacked -- stand to lose out in the deal.

So is this situation susceptible to a win-win solution? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on what the TRUE interests of the parties are. IF both desire power, then a negotiator may try to find a way to provide power to both in a way that by-passes the Arabian throne, which is the point of contention. Finding such a way could conceivably even end up being a win for the foreigners if they end up with a second ally who is beholden to them. HOWEVER, if the TRUE interest of one of the parties is nothing other than the destruction of the other party, then, no, there can be no win-win result.

But you won't know that, until you try the integrative approach in the first place.

Now let's look at the example of brutally oppressive African dictators propped up by foreign interests (both governmental and private):

You ask "what about" them? I ask you back, "What about them?"

The situation in such African nations has never been subjected to any attempt whatsoever to resolve conflicts. Never. Those governments have never made even the slightest attempt to actually rule their countries, as opposed to merely pillaging them. The arrangements with foreign interests for mineral wealth are entirely corrupt, always were and were never meant to be anything else.

So I ask you, how does the absence of any attempt to fix a situation prove that such an attempt cannot work? Don't you have to try something to know whether it works or not?

Try looking through the case studies I provided. You will find examples of both successes and failures of these various approaches. Maybe then you'll be able to put together relevant examples.

The flaw with this reasoning is that it assumes a universality of division of a resource. What happens if it isn't? Say country B wants oil from country X for energy production while country A wants it for fueling heavy transportation, but country X wants to keep it for it's oil for producing c. The pie can be divided, but you can't give everyone all they want since they all want the same thing, and alternatives will incur further cost on their wants. Then what?
Sigh. I refer you to sections FOURTH and FIFTH of my post in which I addressed this. Oh, and section THIRD, too.

Why do I bother?

Usually at the expense of the four and twenty black birds that were used to bake the pie.
You know, in Mongolia, the majority of people are Buddhists who avoid killing things as much as possible, yet, in their agriculture-poor environment, they do eat meat. How do they manage to eat meat without killing? Simple, they just wait for their livestock to die naturally, and then eat them. No such thing as a lamb chop in Mongolia, but plenty of mutton.

So, tell me, do you think the Mongolians make their mutton stew at the expense of the sheep that go into it? I don't.

No matter what the situation, a goal can be attained without harming others, if the one chasing the goal is motivated that way.

Also, I remind you that, in the nursery rhyme, the blackbirds were not killed, because "when the pie was opened the birds began to sing." They apparently didn't lose by the making of that pie, either.

Changing their view, so you've said. Which means changing their perceptions. Even if it works, it doesn't mean they didn't lose. They just stopped noticing the loss.
You are an example of an intractable person. Even if all people walk away from the table satisfied with what they've got, you are going to be the one telling them they are stupid to be satisfied, that they should have gotten something more or something different. You are the one fanning the flames of jealousy and envy. You are the one guaranteeing that conflict will occur over and over.

Why? If they say they are satisfied, why isn't that enough for you?

Practical? Most likely, but still a loss, and while they can accept it, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't feel that they've lost. You would have to change perceptions and mindsets at a fundamental level, and you've made arguments against that being a possibility.
A) Nothing in life is guaranteed.

B) No, I don't have to change perceptions and mindsets at a fundamental level. Very few people have such total tunnel vision that they are simply not capable of taking a broader view of things. The majority of people who do not take the broad view, simply choose not to. The majority of such people can be persuaded to choose differently if it can be shown how their interests will be advanced by it.

Solomon burns the baby and gives the two insurance money?
Hilarious. Or Solomon dictates joint custody and tells the selfish bitches to learn to cope.

Of course this isn't going to happen without someone losing. Most likely the old oppressors who don't or won't see anything good coming out of it, and a new breed of "women should be chattel" numskulls.

It's not like the Western world with it's "equality" is lacking in numbers of anti-feminists and other gender supremacists now isn't it?
Why do you even bother to read, when you apparently have zero intention of even entertaining the other person's thoughts for so much as a second?

Next time you ask me for examples of what I mean so you can "poke holes in it" I'll realize (from this lesson) that what you really mean is "Can you please give me an opportunity to use your writing as an excuse to talk about myself, thanks?" And I won't bother. I'll just repost these posts, since I guess one stage will do as well as another for you.

I would point out that you are not actually addressing what I wrote. I can tell this by the fact that you are not talking about and finding flaws in the examples I gave. You are merely blankly gainsaying what I wrote and then tossing out vague references to things you do not actually explain as "examples" of how you're right and I'm wrong.

All well and good, but you already agree that win-win results aren't guaranteed, and I interject that they are almost impossible to achieve.
I provided case histories. Have fun using them to construct an argument that shows the reasoning behind that broad and categorical assertion. While I wait, I'll just assume you are opting to claim your own way is superior for no reason other than it's yours and not mine.

Keep in mind that I think it's commendable you think this way, but I simply do not see some aspects of human nature which gave rise to the problem of win-lose to begin with, not ideas, but nature, as impossible to remove.
A) Condescension makes me want to say rude things to the person who just condescended to me. Let's try to keep this civil, shall we?

B) You keep saying that, but you have made no actual argument that explains or supports your view of human nature. That gives me little incentive to pay attention to it. Instead, it gives me an incentive to amend my own approaches to conflict resolution by saying, "Always try the integrative bargaining approach first, unless one of the parties is Non-Aligned States because he's just a big pain in the ass. So find some stupid thing for him to play with that's about how selfish and shitty human nature is, and while he fiddles with that in the corner, you and everyone else can work towards a solution. But involving him in the process will only screw everything up because he just likes to fight over stuff for no reason."

It's undeniable that in this limited biosphere, resources are noticeably limited. Not factually limited, such as say, the resources of a galaxy, which is so much to be practically unlimited, but noticeably limited in that people can see how much is left and that it isn't enough to satisfy demand.

The scarcity mentality thus, is a very widespread one.
Widespread =/= universal, necessary or unavoidable.

This is the problem with your idea. It assumes that there might be something out there to solve the lack of cake- I mean pie. Maybe there very well is. But one of the aspects of humanity is that the vast majority of them are incapable of taking the long view, or if they are, are not willing to sacrifice the present for it. In some cases, the long view is simply unacceptable by the sheer amount of obstacles that must be surmounted in order for it to be even viable.
Pessimism is normally one of the Three Most Beneficial States of Mind(tm) because it prepares us for life's ups and downs, but when it's just used as an excuse to not try at all, then it's not so beneficial.

Maybe you should try one of the other Most Beneficial States of Mind(tm), say Desperation, which broadens our horizons by encouraging us to try new things. When you're right up against the edge of that cliff, it's amazing how broad and inclusive the view can get. When you are desperate to get out of a situation, it's amazing just what you can find that you didn't notice before you got desperate enough to really look.

Seriously, your kind of pessimism is strongly suggestive of a person who has never really needed to solve a serious problem and therefore has enjoyed the luxury of making declarations about what is not possible.

In the abundance mentality, we do what we must, because we can, for the good of all.

Except for the ones who are dead.
An obstructionist and meaningless statement. The dead have no needs and can neither win nor lose. You are just trying to paint everyone who tries to resolve conflicts as (figurative) murderers. Yet you have given us nothing to make your views seem even reasonable, let alone realistic. I have you given a link to a large, in-depth source. What have you given us except airy pronouncements and dismissals?

But that's not going to work. Because as I've said, selfishness is an innate part of human nature, and that means accepting the loss of cak-pie!, is not going to happen most of the time.

Prove it. Make an argument.

Want != need. It's very rare when want = something you can't do without.

That being said, look at how widespread the mentality is. Look at how deeply entrenched it is in the society. Even the police is complicit, and the army won't touch it. Rooting this out short of extreme measures is as likely to succeed as emptying an ocean with a spoon.

As for what do they get out of it? A quick an easy way of casting blame, a sense of male empowerment, and an outlet for violence all rolled into one. Trying to change that means changing the environment, attitudes, education, and active suppression of the old guard who will do their damndest to make sure it continues.

You want to stop this kind of thing? Then the first step is the punishment of the guilty, which isn't going to happen without someone losing their heads. Literally. So your win-win situation doesn't work.

Now your points of data make a beautiful line, but it's not released on time. Maybe some 500 years ago or more when the culture began to take root. But not now. You can put out a match with a puff of breath, but not a forest fire.
This is very poetic but largely unnecessary because your view was already made clear, and none of it actually explains why you think people are this way. It is not an argument that attacks or counters my argument.

And if I had a mind control device, things could go a lot better too. It's all well and good to talk about finding a way to make them happy doing what you want them to do, but that's not always the case.



Which requires some sort of shelving of selfishness for an indeterminate time.
No, it doesn't. I already explained this.


Because at the end of the day, I don't really think there is a mindset that doesn't follow one particular set of fundamental principles or another.
What you "don't really think" is not very useful to the conversation unless you can make a debateable argument out of what you do really think. Justify your views, already.

Is it? Fundamentalism is about adherence to a set of principles, not necessarily religious ones.
No, it isn't. What the hell are you talking about? More equivocations with language? Fundamentalism is specifically an EXTREMIST view. NOT every person who adheres to a set of principles does so to an extreme. Ignoring that distinction is nothing but misleading.

It's called a hypothetical and it's purpose was to illustrate just one point in the overall subject. If it was supposed to be inclusive I wouldn't have kept on typing all those other words, too.


This is just a closed-minded view.

I prefer to call it a pessimistic view.


You are entitled to your opinion, but I gave you plenty of evidence that your categorical statement above is just plain not factually true.

How was what I stated not true? I'm quite certain that the events in both did occur. Or did you mean as examples of how such win-lose/win-win-lose events usually occur?


Do not make the mistake of thinking that I am talking in the same absolutes as you seem to be.

Very well then.


First, let's consider two Saudi families: Both contain members who have the stated desire to rule Arabia, and they are in conflict. One family currently is ruling Arabia. They secured that rule with the help of foreign intervention and have maintained it by dealings with foreign powers ever since. The other family did not succeed over the years in gaining sufficient foreign support to make a bid to take the throne, so the family member who currently would like to take over Arabia decides to change his tactic and attack those foreign powers who support his rivals. No matter what happens between those two parties, the third party -- the foreigners who get attacked -- stand to lose out in the deal.

So is this situation susceptible to a win-win solution? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on what the TRUE interests of the parties are. IF both desire power, then a negotiator may try to find a way to provide power to both in a way that by-passes the Arabian throne, which is the point of contention. Finding such a way could conceivably even end up being a win for the foreigners if they end up with a second ally who is beholden to them. HOWEVER, if the TRUE interest of one of the parties is nothing other than the destruction of the other party, then, no, there can be no win-win result.

But you won't know that, until you try the integrative approach in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. I will give you that it is possible for all parties at the table to walk off with enough of the pie that they won't be dissatisfied, but that does not mean the direct consequences of that pie division won't transfer down and make someone else lose.


You ask "what about" them? I ask you back, "What about them?"

The situation in such African nations has never been subjected to any attempt whatsoever to resolve conflicts. Never. Those governments have never made even the slightest attempt to actually rule their countries, as opposed to merely pillaging them. The arrangements with foreign interests for mineral wealth are entirely corrupt, always were and were never meant to be anything else.

So I ask you, how does the absence of any attempt to fix a situation prove that such an attempt cannot work? Don't you have to try something to know whether it works or not?

And you don't see these as perfect examples of your win-win situations? The warlords get opulent lifestyles, the governments and private interests get access to mineral wealth. Both parties are quite happy with the arrangement.

But who loses? Why, the people who weren't at the negotiating table, and probably would have been shot if they were. The people living under the warlords.

Let's put something in perspective. You say that it's possible for win-win approaches at the negotiating table. Fine. I will give you that. That is the basis of all negotiations anyway, where the parties involved get something out of it that they can be satisfied with it.

But the effects of their deal won't happen in a vacuum. It means the loss just trickles down to some luckless schmuck, or a whole nation of them. It's very simple. Many high level deals often have ripple effects that often affect people further down, usually negatively, as a consequence. To the dealers, these things aren't simply important enough to include in their deals. You can't have an everyone wins deal because that effectively violates physical law. Wins and loss are always balanced out, they are immediately apparent to the dealers, or they are diffused to the wider populace at large. Someone must absorb the cost.

Now you've made mention of a negotiating party that arbitrates between the usual 2 party deal. In any basic setup, this means the negotiating party must have the following.

1: A vested interest in the outcome of successful deal.
2: Sufficient authority or viewed as sufficiently neutral to be recognized by both parties as a legitimate arbitrator.
3: An understanding of what both sides want, or the ability to gain the understanding.
Optional: The ability to enforce the terms of the deal.

Now this is the requirement if all the negotiating party wants is a deal that only provides a win-win situation to the ones at the table. If that party wants to make a true win-win situation where nobody loses as a consequence of the deal, they must have the following.

1: Full knowledge of the behaviors of both parties
2: Perfect knowledge of the full effects of any win-win situation and who it will effect down the line.
3: A vested interest in ensuring that these people down the line do not bear the cost of losing.
4: The ability to convince the parties on either side that these people down the line would be less than profitable to transfer the cost of loss to.

You see, winning and losing isn't just about perceptions. It's also about the realities of economics, political will, and ultimately, the ability to enforce things. Infinite resources don't exist, but infinite greed does. When translated to deal making, it is not unreasonable to assume that the involved parties will want as much of whatever they are after as possible. So even when both sides of the deal walk away happy, their deal does incur a cost, which is often dumped on the ones below them, much like private and government support for African warlords in exchange for mineral wealth leaves both sides happy, but the ones outside the table unhappy.

Call it pessimism if you like, or just call me intractable if that is what you want. I see a lot of these things simply not working out, and events seem to bear it out.

That being said, I will make one exception to this seeming universality of loss. And that is when both sides are already losing prior to the negotiations, or cannot foresee a win if things end in a conflict (MAD for example). When both sides are losing in a conflict, a win-win situation can only occur when both sides decide to bring matters to an end and absorb their losses. This is especially so when the prime reasons for conflict are over political or theological goals.

However, if any of the two sides perceives that the objective can be taken with a reasonable chance of success, without incurring too great a loss, then simple pragmatism would assign the same thinking to the other side, and will move to ensure that they will be able to assure their chances of success or at least minimizing the other side of doing so. This was very apparent during the nuclear brinkmanship of 1960-1970, the proxy wars that also infested the time period representative of how both parties will try to find ways and means of gaining their goals while still avoiding the lose-lose scenario.

I suppose this is one of the holes in the idea of abundance mentality negotiators. There may be those with the right mindset to do so, maybe even the amount of comprehensive knowledge needed to negotiate in a way that benefits even those who will be directly affected by the agreement.

But will they have all the aforementioned requirements that a successful negotiator would need? I've not seen one yet.


Try looking through the case studies I provided. You will find examples of both successes and failures of these various approaches. Maybe then you'll be able to put together relevant examples.

I've seen your cases. I'll talk about a few of them.

Afghani warlord election fraud is just one part of it, but the empowerment so far has not done anything to stop the more brutal reprisals and enforcements by various tribal and warlord factions, if the news is to be believed. It's a small step, but whether it will have lasting effects on the macro scale remain to be seen.

For that matter though, nobody has consulted the warlords in this particular case, which sort of throws the idea of integrative negotiations out of the picture doesn't it?

The case of Northern Uganda on the other hand, shows no real signs of coming to a working resolution. On one hand, there is demand for traditional methods of forgiveness seen in the Acholi tribe, while on the other, there is demand for military action by the government to put an end to the LRA once and for all, and on the third hand, there is some movement towards using the ICJ's jurisdiction to provide a sense of justice, nevermind that the conflict makes such prosecution unlikely to work out. This one seems to be more of an opening analysis than problem solving just yet.

The case of Tajikistan on the other hand, appears to be win win, but on the surface alone. Based on what the article is saying, there are a host of problems that the peace deals have either not addressed, or haven't done enough in terms of social change. One of these is trust, the most important element in any form of good faith negotiations.


Sigh. I refer you to sections FOURTH and FIFTH of my post in which I addressed this. Oh, and section THIRD, too.

All well and good that you've done so, but may I point out that you made the assertion earlier that a win-win situation was possible for everyone? Or to be more precise, everyone walks away at least 70% happy? This may be a misconception of mine, although I notice you imply a case of universality in stating that a goal can be achieved without harming anyone. Maybe it very well can be. But human history is littered with examples that it very well isn't, and is generally rarely resorted to. Why do you suppose that is the case?

In your fourth statement, you mentioned that the negotiator must have the abundance mentality. However, you fail to mention that the negotiator must also be capable of persuading both parties to adopt this new mindset, otherwise whatever deal you make, unless enforced with overwhelming force, will fall apart the moment your back is turned.

And you've already made arguments against changing the mindsets of others, so that stymies things a bit no?

Certainly all negotiations, as you mentioned in the fifth statement, start with a position of "No you can't have XYZ outright". Then let us consider the following. You have stated "figure a way to make them gain happiness out of doing what you want them to do."

This is of course, somewhat lacking in sufficient methodology to really make for much progress, and relies on "a way". Of course there are many ways to doing something, but what is the specifics of this way? By downplaying the value of what the parties want? Or is it by offering them alternatives? Are the alternatives attractive enough that it will utterly eliminate the desire for the original objectives?

You say I use absolutes. Perhaps I do. But I use absolutes of goals to judge the effectiveness of methods down the timeline, and quite unsurprisingly, humans as a species, transient as they are, will always choose the immediate over the long term, even if it usually means sacrificing the future. Which of course means more misery and tragedy humanity inflicts on itself.


You know, in Mongolia, the majority of people are Buddhists who avoid killing things as much as possible, yet, in their agriculture-poor environment, they do eat meat. How do they manage to eat meat without killing? Simple, they just wait for their livestock to die naturally, and then eat them. No such thing as a lamb chop in Mongolia, but plenty of mutton.

So, tell me, do you think the Mongolians make their mutton stew at the expense of the sheep that go into it? I don't.

What you mention, including the factors you raise, more likely make such matters an issue of practicality rather than belief. Mongolia is both literally and agriculture-poor as you've said, which makes the raising of livestock in appreciable numbers difficult. Sheep are dual purpose livestock. As byproducts and food. Can the Mongolians afford to raise sheep at sufficient numbers to allow them to raise enough sheep as purely food? It seems doubtful that they would allow potential to go to waste.

In this case, the expense comes from the poverty of the Mongolian people. Were they richer, it seems much less likely that they will continue such a lifestyle.


Also, I remind you that, in the nursery rhyme, the blackbirds were not killed, because "when the pie was opened the birds began to sing." They apparently didn't lose by the making of that pie, either.

You try baking 24 blackbirds in a pie and let me know if they survive.


Even if all people walk away from the table satisfied with what they've got, you are going to be the one telling them they are stupid to be satisfied, that they should have gotten something more or something different. You are the one fanning the flames of jealousy and envy. You are the one guaranteeing that conflict will occur over and over.

You are dearly mistaken if you think I would rather they be like that. I don't. But observations of human nature as a species and its tendencies as a species make such fundamental changes in the psychological makeup of humanity as likely as them spontaneously growing wings and flying.


A) Nothing in life is guaranteed.

Which is why high minded ideals often fail to succeed in the long run. They are quickly subverted by those with less altruistic intent.


B) No, I don't have to change perceptions and mindsets at a fundamental level. Very few people have such total tunnel vision that they are simply not capable of taking a broader view of things.

A large portion of the American populace seems to disagree with you there.


Hilarious. Or Solomon dictates joint custody and tells the selfish bitches to learn to cope.

Rather ignoring the source of the problem are we?


I provided case histories. Have fun using them to construct an argument that shows the reasoning behind that broad and categorical assertion. While I wait, I'll just assume you are opting to claim your own way is superior for no reason other than it's yours and not mine.


I think I've pointed out the flaws in the cases you've shown. They don't quite accomplish what you're saying. At least not to the point where gain is achieved without harming anyone. Harming less, that seems to be the case. Without harm? That remains to be seen.

As for superior? Not really. It just seems to be much more prevalent and favored by humanity than the methods you espouse. What I prefer has nothing to do with it.


Widespread =/= universal, necessary or unavoidable.


Well then, unless you find some way of making it not so widespread, such things are going to be the status quo will they not?


Pessimism is normally one of the Three Most Beneficial States of Mind(tm) because it prepares us for life's ups and downs, but when it's just used as an excuse to not try at all, then it's not so beneficial.

Optimism is a beneficial state of mind, it provides energy and drive towards achieving life's ups, but it does make one prone to being blind to the possible points of failure.

Incremental change can work, it does. But incremental change has this weakness of being adapted to and subverted by the old guard before it can do much. Bigger, unexpected change on the other hand, tends to be resisted more often by a larger group, though it can catch the old guard before they can do anything.

If I seem pessimistic, it's because I haven't met a proposal yet that I would not be able to exploit for selfish ends that would cause suffering. And if I can find such means, then others, who are far more experienced in such methods, would be able to do so, and probably do it better too.

Murphy's law if you will.


Maybe you should try one of the other Most Beneficial States of Mind(tm), say Desperation, which broadens our horizons by encouraging us to try new things. When you're right up against the edge of that cliff, it's amazing how broad and inclusive the view can get. When you are desperate to get out of a situation, it's amazing just what you can find that you didn't notice before you got desperate enough to really look.


Tried that. I ended up charting travel routes of certain dignitaries, vantage points and studying volatiles composition and production before I realized it was a stupid idea that wouldn't really solve anything.


Seriously, your kind of pessimism is strongly suggestive of a person who has never really needed to solve a serious problem and therefore has enjoyed the luxury of making declarations about what is not possible.

Problem solving is something everyone has to learn sooner or later, else I wouldn't be here talking to you. As for seriousness, there are various levels of seriousness. Do you mean a problem that would result in immediate death without quick resolution? Or something else? It's hard to give an answer without a baseline.

That being said, problems based on physical law are relatively easy to solve if one has the required knowledge in the related disciplines. Problems stemming from the human psychology, a lot more difficult.


An obstructionist and meaningless statement.

And one given when I was feeling cranky.


Prove it. Make an argument.

Let's take a look through history shall we? The one that most stands out (since I'm digging things out at random), was the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact of 1939. Would have worked out rather well for both parties, if it had held. The Soviet Union would have had time to build up industrially, while Nazi Germany would have been able to finish off Britain at it's leisure. Clearly that didn't happen and a two pronged war started, costing the whole pie.

But Hitler was a nut anyway, so let's move onto someone less crazy.

How about the interactions with the American government and the native Americans back in those early days? There weren't enough imported people in America then to occupy all the land the natives had, and there certainly seemed to be enough for everyone. Of course that didn't happen. Andrew Jackson simply rode in on the continued ideas of his predecessors, which began back then with the Jeffrey Amherst and his lovely plague blankets, and started death marches for the natives. Of course there were some who left voluntarily, since they saw the writing on the wall with no place for them in America, land of inequality that it was. But there was the Seminoles, who, rather than being allowed any slice of the pie, not that they were intended to be given anyway, had the promise of pie, and got bayonets instead.

And of course, who can forget the Cherokee's, who were the ones who had their own death march to look forward to at gunpoint? It's not like there wasn't enough land for a fair slice for everyone oh no. It's just that someone wanted more, and decided that their wants superseded the needs of others. Selfishness at its finest.

What of Japan's Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere? Ostensibly, it was supposed to mean the removal of Western influence in Asia, long resented, with a new political sphere that would have been by Asians, for Asians. Japan would have reaped the benefits of vast resource riches in Asia, with a supportive native populace. But only if, and if, they had been honest with their intentions. What they did instead was create a regime of terror and barbaric slaughter so horrible, even the SS detachments there protested. No surprise then that they ended up costing themselves the pie, and the rest of Asia's enmity for generations, with that hate still burning strong enough to desire the death of every single soldier of that time who still survives in some quarters.

But how about something closer to the modern age? Say, the Oslo accords? By the agreements stated within, it would have at least given everyone a slice of the pie. Better than fighting and dying over a piece of pie that really holds no economic or strategic significance, and costing more misery and lives than just having a slice. Reasonable and sensible right? Sadly, reason and sensibleness isn't exactly found in great quantities in the human race, not when tantalizing things like dogma and zealotry, and a sprinkling of bigotry, offer much more tantalizing emotional satisfaction. The Oslo pie ended up getting riddled with bullets, and so did one of the deal makers.

More selfishness trumping long term gain.

So tell me why instances such as these, so littered throughout human history, will go away or stop being the status quo anytime?


What you "don't really think" is not very useful to the conversation unless you can make a debateable argument out of what you do really think. Justify your views, already.

Very well then, let's take a look at say, political leanings. We have liberals, conservatives, neo versions of the latter, libertarians communists, fascists and a few theocrats hanging around NSG. If we discount the actual trolls and not those who just have trollish behavior while defending their views, we can easily say that they all have a very strong adherence to the principles of their political bearings no? Take TAI for example. Any evidence contrary to his mono-ethnic, mono-theology, racial supremacy views are instantly discarded without any consideration, or if it is, only to be dismissed as irrelevant.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have Andaras, who I suspect you were well acquainted with during his stint here.

Or what of those with a strong sense of what is just and what isn't? We can put that under ethics, but at the same time, isn't a strong adherence to a set of ethics against criticisms of others just as fundamental?

Isn't then the idea of changing mindsets and viewpoints, be it through hard or soft methods, simply exchanging a set of fundamentals with another?


No, it isn't. What the hell are you talking about? More equivocations with language? Fundamentalism is specifically an EXTREMIST view. NOT every person who adheres to a set of principles does so to an extreme. Ignoring that distinction is nothing but misleading.

Technically, the entries I have read on its definition state that it is:


The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations

Does strong mean extremist? Or is extremist just fundamentalism taken a few steps further?

A big step would be to get people literate and reading their own holy books themselves as well as teaching them critical thinking skills.

Not going to happen. Arabic is an alien language to Pakistan. The Qur'an is written in classical Arabic which is hard enough for Arabs themselves. Translations are not considered authentic.

You cannot argue from a religious point of view in Islam, if you don't know how to read and interpret the Qur'an as it is written in classical Arabic.

This is the reason why Mullahs/Moulanas have such a sway over their flock. All they have to say is "Well the Qur'an says so, surely you don't want to be anti-Islamic, do you? DO YOU?" and that's the end of any opposition.

Well, Pakistan was a colony from its inception. It only ever existed as a part of India before that.

Colonial British perfidy played a big part here. The current mess there has a lot to do with the frontier policies followed by British colonial thinkers/administrators. People like Olaf Caroe etc. Heck, Olaf Caroe was the founder of ISI - the organization that is running the Jihad in those parts.

Actually, there was a political party in NWFP led by Bacha Khan, also known as Frontier Gandhi -because of his staunch belief in Gandhian practices. The party was popular in some settled Pushtun (non tribal/FATA) groups and was willing to join India during the partition.

On Mullahs and such wonderful people, as if on cue, this just in

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/2963744/Mickey-Mouse-must-die-says-Saudi-Arabian-cleric.html

Mickey Mouse must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric
Sheikh Muhammad Munajid claimed the mouse is "one of Satan's soldiers" and makes everything it touches impure.

But he warned that depictions of the creature in cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, and Disney's Mickey Mouse, had taught children that it was in fact loveable.

The cleric, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, said that under Sharia, both household mice and their cartoon counterparts must be killed.

Mr Munajid was asked to give Islam's teaching on mice during a religious affairs programme broadcast on al-Majd TV, an Arab television network.

According to a translation prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute, an American press monitoring service, he said: "The mouse is one of Satan's soldiers and is steered by him.

"If a mouse falls into a pot of food – if the food is solid, you should chuck out the mouse and the food touching it, and if it is liquid – you should chuck out the whole thing, because the mouse is impure.

"According to Islamic law, the mouse is a repulsive, corrupting creature. How do you think children view mice today – after Tom and Jerry?

"Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.

"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases."

Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits.

It says its been translated by MEMRI. Take it FWIW.

Having seen such things before, I won't be surprised if this is a correct translation of what he said.

Yes. That's why I actually like your idea of a railroad carrying women and girls away so much. It's two birds with one stone: you save women from being abused - and you break the families and eliminate the culture. And as long as they're brought into monogamous cultures, help fight the overpopulation.

Oh, crap.

Let's put it differently. Let's imagine an underground railway which carries away only the men, the moment they think "OH crap, I hate being part of this patriarchal oppression, I wish there was some other way."

Then they arrrive (let's face it, as illegal immigrants) in your or my Western democracy, armed only with this idea that their girlfriend, sister, or mother is not chattel. That they have human rights ... as this man understands human rights from within their culture. That women have some (but not necessarily equal) rights ... that they are somewhat human, and more than animals or inanimate objects.

Now, let's face the fact that a sexist, misogynist FEMALE is much more attractive to us than a sexist mysogynist MALE would be ... and we have immigration policy in a nutshell.
Bring us the naive womenfolk, leave their cynical menfolk to rot in their failsome economies.

To the victors the spoils. And the girls.

Having seen such things before, I won't be surprised if this is a correct translation of what he said.


Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits.

Mr Munajid loves talking about himself doesn't he?

I prefer to call it a pessimistic view.



How was what I stated not true? I'm quite certain that the events in both did occur. Or did you mean as examples of how such win-lose/win-win-lose events usually occur?

<snip the mother of all thread hijacks>
FIRST: You are still not giving me what I asked for.

SECOND: You are not even trying to keep this relevant to the thread topic.

THIRD: This is exactly why I said I did not want to get into this issue in this thread -- because it is so OFF TOPIC.

FOURTH: If you want to pursue this, MAKE ANOTHER THREAD FOR IT, dammit, as I first suggested. I am interested in the actual topic, and I don't want to waste all my time plowing through ever longer and longer posts just to try to get you to give an answer that actually relates to a question.

FIFTH: And no, I'm not conceding-by-backing-out by telling you to put this debate into it's own (proper) context. I still reject nearly everything you said beause you are still doing exactly what I complained of you doing before, namely:

>> You are not showing me the reasoning behind your assertion that human nature goes against an integrative approach. You are only insisting that it does.

>> Your examples are merely randomly selected situations that you claim illustrate your argument (which you have not properly made, because an assertion is not an argument all by itself). Only they don't illustrate anything because you do not show how these situations worked out the way they did BECAUSE of the aspects of human nature you claim are the dominating norm and had no other factors involved in them that could have been the deciding factor in the outcome.

>> You are still not addressing my argument as a whole, but rather breaking it apart and treating each piece out of its context and, thus, losing the meaning of my argument. So that is one way in which you are not addressing what I said to you.

>> You are still not actually responding to what I said. If you were, I doubt you would still be writing War and Peace length posts addressed to me because you would see that you have already conceded agreement to half my main point, which is that integrative bargaining is just one way to approach a conflict and is not applicable to every situation. The only part you still seem to disagree with is the other half of my main point, which is that the rewards of integrative bargaining are so great that it should be the default first attempt at resolution in every conflict. But who gives a rat's ass if you disagree with me on that half-point? If you agree on the other half-point, then there is nothing else to argue about in this thread, is there? Nothing on-topic, at any rate. Anyway, that is the other way in which you are not addressing my actual argument.

You are just talking around me, not to me. I really don't feel like being a prop on which you can set up your personal blog about human nature. I sure as hell don't feel like playing that role in this thread.

Show some respect to the thread and the other posters in it and stop using up screen space with this completely unrelated argument. Thank you. Ye gods.

On Mullahs and such wonderful people, as if on cue, this just in

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/2963744/Mickey-Mouse-must-die-says-Saudi-Arabian-cleric.html

Mickey Mouse must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric


It says its been translated by MEMRI. Take it FWIW.

Having seen such things before, I won't be surprised if this is a correct translation of what he said.
This was actually depressing and funny at the same time. A couple of comments:

1) "Mr Munajid was asked to give Islam's teaching on mice during a religious affairs programme broadcast on al-Majd TV, an Arab television network."

When people are asking a religion to provide such things as a "teaching on mice," they are treating it as a cult, not a religion. Cults are the organizations that control every single aspect of personal existence down to the minutest detail for the express purpose of exerting control over their followers. From what I, as an outsider, know of Islam, the religion itself does not do this, but rather seeks to provide a foundational philosophic/theologic basis on which its followers should formulate their own thoughts in specific situations. It does not set out to tell them what to think about mice. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I was not aware that the Quran contained a chapter on mice.

The people who asked for such remarks from the Imam are abdicating their personal responsibility as Muslims by asking the religion to take such control over their lives. And the Imam who obliged them is not honoring his religion or his religious duties, in my opinion, but is rather setting himself up as a cult leader for whom no detail of other people's lives is too tiny for him to exert control over it.

2) From what you said in another post, it seems this is what many Imams and mullahs do, and I don't doubt it. I personally have no issues with Islam or Muslims, but I have thought for many years now that control of the religious organization of Islam has been taken over by cultists -- I'm talking WBC-level cultists, real hardcore crazy bastards -- just as many Christian churches and political groups in my country, the US, have also lapsed into cult behavior and cult-like forms.

3) "If a mouse falls into a pot of food – if the food is solid, you should chuck out the mouse and the food touching it, and if it is liquid – you should chuck out the whole thing, because the mouse is impure."

The Imam is giving his cult-followers bad advice. Mice can spread disease, especially through their droppings (whether fresh or dried out), so readily that even solid food that has been anywhere near mice should be discarded in its entirety, for safety. By his ill-informed comments, the Imam is encouraging "impurity."

Also, I fail to see why anyone would need to be told by a religious leader that their religion wants them to keep mice out of their food. Wouldn't you want to keep mice out of your food regardless of what your religion said? What kind of idiots does this Imam think he is leading?

Seriously, this Imam is nothing but a cult-leader. If he were not -- if he did not already have a cultist's mind -- then when the radio show asked for "Islam's teaching on mice," he would have said, "What, are you trying to be funny? What kind of a question is that? What am I, a clown? Do I amuse you? Eh?"

4) "Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits."

Well, one thing you can say for Satan, he knows what he likes. And so do a lot of other guys. And women, too. *thinks about those swimmers in their speedos...*

Anyway, Mr. Munajid clearly is just opposed to happiness, so... the hell with him. He can sit in front of the tv with his eyes shut tight for god while eating solid food full of mouse-crap dust for all I care.

This was actually depressing and funny at the same time. A couple of comments:

1) "Mr Munajid was asked to give Islam's teaching on mice during a religious affairs programme broadcast on al-Majd TV, an Arab television network."

When people are asking a religion to provide such things as a "teaching on mice," they are treating it as a cult, not a religion. Cults are the organizations that control every single aspect of personal existence down to the minutest detail for the express purpose of exerting control over their followers. From what I, as an outsider, know of Islam, the religion itself does not do this, but rather seeks to provide a foundational philosophic/theologic basis on which its followers should formulate their own thoughts in specific situations. It does not set out to tell them what to think about mice. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I was not aware that the Quran contained a chapter on mice.

The people who asked for such remarks from the Imam are abdicating their personal responsibility as Muslims by asking the religion to take such control over their lives. And the Imam who obliged them is not honoring his religion or his religious duties, in my opinion, but is rather setting himself up as a cult leader for whom no detail of other people's lives is too tiny for him to exert control over it.

2) From what you said in another post, it seems this is what many Imams and mullahs do, and I don't doubt it. I personally have no issues with Islam or Muslims, but I have thought for many years now that control of the religious organization of Islam has been taken over by cultists -- I'm talking WBC-level cultists, real hardcore crazy bastards -- just as many Christian churches and political groups in my country, the US, have also lapsed into cult behavior and cult-like forms.

3) "If a mouse falls into a pot of food – if the food is solid, you should chuck out the mouse and the food touching it, and if it is liquid – you should chuck out the whole thing, because the mouse is impure."

The Imam is giving his cult-followers bad advice. Mice can spread disease, especially through their droppings (whether fresh or dried out), so readily that even solid food that has been anywhere near mice should be discarded in its entirety, for safety. By his ill-informed comments, the Imam is encouraging "impurity."

Also, I fail to see why anyone would need to be told by a religious leader that their religion wants them to keep mice out of their food. Wouldn't you want to keep mice out of your food regardless of what your religion said? What kind of idiots does this Imam think he is leading?

Seriously, this Imam is nothing but a cult-leader. If he were not -- if he did not already have a cultist's mind -- then when the radio show asked for "Islam's teaching on mice," he would have said, "What, are you trying to be funny? What kind of a question is that? What am I, a clown? Do I amuse you? Eh?"

4) "Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits."

Well, one thing you can say for Satan, he knows what he likes. And so do a lot of other guys. And women, too. *thinks about those swimmers in their speedos...*

Anyway, Mr. Munajid clearly is just opposed to happiness, so... the hell with him. He can sit in front of the tv with his eyes shut tight for god while eating solid food full of mouse-crap dust for all I care.

And the sad thing is, if even some obscure right-wing bloggerhead heard about this story, it wouldn't take long for the noise machine to spread it all over claiming that all Muslim imams in the world are identical Kamino-cloned copies of Munajid.

And the sad thing is, if even some obscure right-wing bloggerhead heard about this story, it wouldn't take long for the noise machine to spread it all over claiming that all Muslim imams in the world are identical Kamino-cloned copies of Munajid.
The more I think about this story, the more torn I am about it.

On the one hand, I know for a fact that cult-leaders do say exactly such insane shit as this. I also know for a fact that many cult-leaders promote violence and sexual abuse both inside and outside their own communities, and that several Imams have done exactly that, encouraging a social dynamic that terrorizes its own members as much as it threatens outsiders.

On the other hand, this mouse thing is so outrageously dumb that it could just as easily be the kind of thing that is made up about a religion or a religious leader by their enemies to make them look ridiculous or crazy. I think of some of the things that US politicians and pundits say that their rivals have said and done, and really, it's not much more outrageous, except that none of it is true.

So I find myself thinking that this mouse story is equally likely to be true as to be false. I hate that.

You try baking 24 blackbirds in a pie and let me know if they survive.
Wait a minute: are you trying to tell me that wasn't a true story?

*snip*

Murarvyets, I really don't know what you want anymore. Either we have a massive failure to get points across, or we're not considering each other's views anymore.

You keep saying that an integrative approach should always be tried, that it will always provide much better benefits, and I point out that your cases haven't resolved their own problems with the semi-integrative methods they've been using. I highlight cases which shows that humans in general don't prefer the integrative approach either, which you've asked me to prove, but dismissed anyway.

There's an infinite number of ways to do things, but that doesn't mean they always work.

But you want to keep it on topic fine.

The problem of honor killing. You've highlighted the case of empowering women in Afghanistan as one way. That may work when there isn't any negative reinforcement other than just not getting a whole pile of cash. That's not going to work in the boonies of Pakistan because the men kill women who defy them even the slightest unless you intend to arm the women and start off a mini cold war of the sexes.

So why don't you give us a practical, workable means of an integrative approach to solving this then hmm?

Let's see if what you espouse works when put to the acid test.

Wait a minute: are you trying to tell me that wasn't a true story?

Empirical evidence says that it isn't.

The three men should be handed over to LG for punishment. *Nods*

That would be enough to rid anyone of their criminal minds, or we might get wannabe Jokers instead who will serve the divine will of the LG.

Murarvyets, I really don't know what you want anymore. Either we have a massive failure to get points across, or we're not considering each other's views anymore.
<snip>
As I told you, based on what you wrote, I do not believe you were ever addressing my points.

But you want to keep it on topic fine.

The problem of honor killing. You've highlighted the case of empowering women in Afghanistan as one way. That may work when there isn't any negative reinforcement other than just not getting a whole pile of cash. That's not going to work in the boonies of Pakistan because the men kill women who defy them even the slightest unless you intend to arm the women and start off a mini cold war of the sexes.

So why don't you give us a practical, workable means of an integrative approach to solving this then hmm?

Let's see if what you espouse works when put to the acid test.

And this proves it, because if you were really addressing my points, you would have read them, and you would already have what you need from the source link I gave. I specifically brought your attention to the list of case studies more than three times. Read it or ride it to hell, I don't care.

And the reason I don't care is that you are STILL TRYING TO DRIVE THIS THREAD OFF TOPIC. You don't want to discuss the topic. You want to discuss how you think I'm wrong and you're right about techniques of conflict resolution. OFF TOPIC. MAKE A GODDAMNED THREAD ABOUT CONFLICT RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES if you want to debate it so badly.

All I said was that I believe in the possibility of win-win outcomes. On the basis of that, rather than merely be content to disagree with me, you have been trying to force me into a debate that I have specifically told you I don't want to have and especially do not want to have in this thread. Any further attempts by you to rope me into derailing this thread will be /ignored.

PS: They kill women for speaking up in Afghanistan, too.

Fundamentalism will never truly be extinct, just like we'll never completely eradicate pathogens. However, the chances of it gaining influence and spreading are definitely reduced when there's education and economic self-sufficiency available to the masses.