So now that Iran has clearly violated International Law...

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

Also, Iran never threatened Israel, just said that it "should" be wiped off the map. It may still be bad, but look up the definition of a threat, and that is not it.

if you think ahmadinejad's 'map' sentence is the only time an iranian leader said anything about israel, you are sorely mistaken. you need look no further than this thread to find ample evidence that iran not only threatens israel, it is actively seeking israel's destruction through by any means possible.

Also, there are many, many reasons Iran wants to search for nuclear energy. They definitely do NOT have enough oil for "centuries" as it's been significantly decreasing for a while, and they are a major exporter in oil. Nuclear energy is going to be needed in the future, what's wrong with them looking at the big picture?

again, i don't think you read carefully enough. i didn't say they had enough oil for centuries. they have enough natural gas for centuries.

Iran would never attack Israel or the US. Trust me,

why should i trust you on this?

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

-never assume that someone is simply given to verbal hyperbole. when they talk about wiping you out, you take them seriously.

I agree 100%. And as I said in my pretentious reply before, how we respond makes the difference between whether we are acting reasonably or based upon fear.

i provided the quotes of iranian leaders because i'm arguing that they can't be trusted to behave as the communist states did with their nuclear weapons. the quotes serve as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of this.

And yet, to make the leap from here to them being a direct imminent danger is an altogether different story. edit: there are many many people on the planet that I don't trust with my well-being. What action do you take against someone you don't trust? You cannot take offensive action, or it shows that YOU are the one who is the danger, based on your fears.

When we make leaps and jumps between evidence and proof and reason, such leaps will be based on all kinds of emotional arguments. And therein lies the problem that again, the ideas in our head about fear and paranoia are about us. The way to deal with this reasonably, responsibly, and without drawing even worse consequences for ourselves (escalating), wherein we are a distinct part of the problem, is to recognize and deal with our own emotions so that we can let them go and face a situation such as this with clear vision, reason, and a level head.

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.

Who do you get your morning briefings from? It is very easy to say Iran-this and Iran that, just like a lot of people say America-this and America-that when it comes to the CIA and their history of notoriously murderous bunglings and rabble rousing. What is the service in Iran that does these things? At least give us that.

angelica wrote:

So what? Live and let live. Your not suggesting ethnocentrism, are you--expecting the world live by your values, are you?

Are you planning on moving to Iran?

It sounds like you are unable to get your mind around an entirely different way of life.

What? You don't like them for their lifestyle and you think we need to put a stop to that?

I probably disagree with the way most of the people on this board live their lives. And some people I believe think in ways that are potentially dangerous. What do you suggest I do?

Trying to get us to rally based on this ethocentric gay thing just does not wash with me.

Give me a break... I know you are smarter than this. If standing up for the rights of the oppressed and trying to check aggressive regimes that aim to repress others is "ethnocentric" then I am guilty as charged.

Seriously, can you not see your hypocracy? So, according to you, Iranian leaders can excecute homosexuals for religous values, but I'm not allowed to hold the opposite view? They can act on their values by killing somebody, but I can't act on my values by trying to save their life? Why not, becuase there is an ocean between us? Because we all need to pretend as if other people don't exist? Because we should all fool ourselves into thinking that governments, not just people, but GOVERNMENTS that sanction this kind of behavior aren't any concern of mine??? Especially a government that is seeking nuclear technology and the potential to build bombs????

Do you not agree that we are all brothers and sisters, we are all related? Am I not supposed to care about the persecution of Iranian women, non-muslims or homosexuals? Am I not supposed to support foreign policies that would check a government that sanctions such persecution?????

I wonder if you would have told the same thing MLK Jr. in 1960... that he shouldn't be so ethnocentric. Just "live and let live Martin" If you don't like the way you're being treated, then just go somewhere else and leave these white folks be.... is that how it is???

Fuck it, one more thing....

What is up with your tendency to castigate me as "not understanding" something simply because I disagree with it? Especially when I'm not saying anything that isn't truthful? You have no evidence that I can't "get my head around" another way of life... quite the contrary, the reason I disagree with it is presicely becuase I understand it, which is pathetically obvious based on my arguments. That sort of empty arguement is a bit childish and revealing don't you think???

NCfan wrote:

Fuck it, one more thing....

What is up with your tendency to castigate me as "not understanding" something simply because I disagree with it? Especially when I'm not saying anything that isn't truthful? You have no evidence that I can't "get my head around" another way of life... quite the contrary, the reason I disagree with it is presicely becuase I understand it, which is pathetically obvious based on my arguments. That sort of empty arguement is a bit childish and revealing don't you think???

What you indicate is that you see the opposition through your own agenda, rather than indicating understanding by being....understanding. You fully understand your American viewpoint of Iran and the threat they pose to YOU. However you show that you don't understand the full truth. A partial truth is fine within it's own context, and yet it's a far cry from understanding the situation. You show that you don't understand their perspective, or the principles that underly where people are in their evolution, or effective ways of dealing with that. Until you acknowledge such facts you will not be dealing with the situation realistically, and it will show.

angelica wrote:

No. Expecting others to live the way you culturally do is ethnocentric. And post after post, you seem to fit the bill. There is life beyond the ethnocentric stance. And that is the global perspective, where we are able to see numerous viewpoints and to comfortably hold them in our minds at one time. We don't have to like them, but we can accept them as they are. That is the only basis for actual understanding. If you think it's acceptable to force others to live your way, you show your imbalanced stance. Does it surprise you that other countries would like to defend against that stance?

I'm afraid the hypocrisy you see is your own.

If you care about them, learn about different cultural views and levels of human evolution. And about how we cannot force change on others because it doesn't work and is really merely a reflection of our own "issues". Once you learn that, maybe you will be freed up to find something effective to bring to the table.

Whatever justification you use, you cannot effectively justify the flawed premise you stand upon. The problem is not in your argument, it's the flawed foundation you stand upon.

Somebody needs to tell me how to cut out certain portions of posts and respond underneath them like you're doing.

Anyways, I fully agree with you that expecting somebody to live by your cultural values is ethnocentric. But that doesn't mean being ethnocentric is a bad thing - and on this, I'm sure you would agree.

For instance, by your definition, wanting Iran to stop hanging homosexuals is ethnocentric becuase as Westerners, we don't believe in that. However, we can both seethe superiority of our values here.

So ethnocentricity is not wrong, and it is not bad - when people challenge their own beliefs and hold a "global perspective" as you would say.

But challenging your beliefs to the point where you don't stand for anything, becuase you're scared you might be wrong - is just as bad as being a super-ethnocentrist who can't see other people's perspectives.

angelica wrote:

What you indicate is that you see the opposition through your own agenda, rather than indicating understanding by being....understanding. You fully understand your American viewpoint of Iran and the threat they pose to YOU. However you show that you don't understand the full truth. A partial truth is fine within it's own context, and yet it's a far cry from understanding the situation. You show that you don't understand their perspective, or the principles that underly where people are in their evolution, or effective ways of dealing with that. Until you acknowledge such facts you will not be dealing with the situation realistically, and it will show.

What you indicate is that becuase you disagree with me, yet know I'm right, you are left with only one childish response - to claim I'm being prejudice.

If I were wrong you would have ample evidence to rebuke my statements, instead of giving us nothing more than your opinion, which we can both argue endlessly.

NCfan wrote:

Somebody needs to tell me how to cut out certain portions of posts and respond underneath them like you're doing.

At the beginning of the portion you want to quote, use the square bracket/quote/square bracket. At the end of the quote, you use square bracket/forward slash/quote/square bracket.

Anyways, I fully agree with you that expecting somebody to live by your cultural values is ethnocentric. But that doesn't mean being ethnocentric is a bad thing - and on this, I'm sure you would agree.

Being ethnocentric is fine if it is about abiding by your cultural laws and upholding them, and fitting in well within your culture. When you go beyond it being about you, to where you think you can impose that on someone else, I call it "bad". The reason is that it cannot work. You cannot expect another culture to give up what is ingrained in them--and is woven into the very fabric of who they are-- and discard who they are in order to take up what you'd like them to. You cannot expect them to suddenly know and understand emotionally/mentally/physically what is ingrained in you when it is not ingrained in them. To force change on others is crossing serious lines. When we do this on the world stage not only is it completely inappropriate, and going against natural law but, it hooks groups who feel they must create a backlash to keep your imbalanced, inappropriate behaviour in line, anyway they know how.

For instance, by your definition, wanting Iran to stop hanging homosexuals is ethnocentric becuase as Westerners, we don't believe in that. However, we can both seethe superiority of our values here.

Okay, I'll bite. As much as the idea that one is "superior" is a false, imbalanced perspective, and one that is part of these dysfunctional cycles, I will go with this. I see what you mean. Maybe you can understand this way. You might have a superior way to a five year old. I will grant you that your way is more evolved, in that you have been five and you have evolved beyond through numerous developmental stages. Can you force a five year old to be as mature as you are at your age? Would trying to do so work?

So ethnocentricity is not wrong, and it is not bad - when people challenge their own beliefs and hold a "global perspective" as you would say.

The majority of people in North America are ethnocentric. It has good and bad points. If you use your ethnocentric view to justify infringing on others, that is about your infringing behaviours and is inappropriate.

As I said, learning to see beyond the ethnocentric view is the next level of awareness. And many people have already honed such an awareness.

But challenging your beliefs to the point where you don't stand for anything, becuase you're scared you might be wrong - is just as bad as being a super-ethnocentrist who can't see other people's perspectives.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The fact that I see other people's perspectives allows me to make realistic judgments based on a wider perspective of the situation. It is the opposite of paralyzing my own perspective. It entitles me to make decisions knowing with reasonable certainty that my actions are aligned with all the valid variables in the situation. I grant you that there are many people who believe each view is correct and should be allowed to stand, thereby rendering themselves unable to act. I assure you I am not one of them. While I do believe all views are valid within their own context, I ALSO believe that there is universal law. Such law can be shown/proven by logical discernment and cause and effect. Therefore there ARE levels of what works in terms of effectiveness/non-effectiveness. When you've got universal law and effectiveness on your side, anything is possible in terms of productive change in the world.

NCfan wrote:

The only thing that chaps my ass is that somehow think your logic and reasoning is both immune from perspective and superior to mine

I'm as flawed and as subject to bias as the next guy. Reasonableness is it's own indicator. When my points are proven wrong by their unreasonableness, I fully accept that.