Comments on: Tragic Anniversaries

By: Top Fashion Tips

Top Fashion Tips — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:21:03 +0000

Top Fashion Tips…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

By: Chritopher

Chritopher — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:41:38 +0000

Chritopher…

…

By: new york yankee baseball

new york yankee baseball — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:56:47 +0000

new york yankee baseball…

Hi. Very nice blog. I\’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….

By: Green

Green — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:12:01 +0000

Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green

By: black chair kitchen

black chair kitchen — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:07:26 +0000

black chair kitchen…

As always a good post ….

By: satan4bxv

satan4bxv — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:56:37 +0000

Ich can mich an dich uberhaupt poker nicht errinern.bxv

By: Round Up Ringtone

Round Up Ringtone — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:58:25 +0000

Round Up Ringtone…

All You Want Ringtone All You Want Ringtone back form mars Ringtone back form mars Ringtone Ass Like That Ringtone Ass Like That Ringtone On The Run Ringtone On The Run Ringtone Put It In Your Mouth Ringtone Put It In Your Mouth Ringtone A Little To Lo…

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:34:54 +0000

In relating geopolitics, stuck in 19th century imperialism meme is a tired approach. I can both understand a failed state and not support it at the same time. Whether I want to actually buy it in order to change it is another matter. I prefer not if other ways of getting them to quit killing themselves are avialable. Sudan comes to mind.

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:30:22 +0000

Well I’m not “the right” for one thing. I understand these contexts perfectly and don’t accept the walls against thought they impose. I’m the middle where elections are won. Understanding is one thing and approval is another when outsiders are affected. What about that can’t you see?

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:36:34 +0000

The point of cultural relativism is to understand cultures within their own context, rather than outside it. It has nothing to do with whether one feels a particular culture or culturally derived behavior is good or bad.

Why does the right insist on pretending that understanding something is the same as accepting it or, even, approving of it?

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 04:27:28 +0000

Should I have been hoping you’d provide some examples that are relevant to U.S. geopolitics, or betting that you wouldn’t?

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:28:17 +0000

“Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom [must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits.]

And there you have it.

“Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy skepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable. ”

Having 50 kids is a pefectly fine for the Bin Ladens, but others doing it are still poor and thus a burden on the world yet imaginary cultural justification allows it. Yet it defies objective reason when removed from culture. I’m against this cultural license to be stupid.

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:14:01 +0000

Reason operates independently of culture. Truth knows no culture. It just is regardless of cultural biases. The moral relativism isn’t culture-centric per se. Cultural relativism can say it’s OK to eat other humans because it’s something peculiar to our culture. And we relish it despite what the rest of the world thinks. In this world all cultures are separate paradigms. I don’t buy that concept.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:23:13 +0000

Wikipedia says: Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human’s beliefs and activities make sense in terms of his or her own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by Boas’ students. Boas himself did not use the term as such, but the term became common among anthropologists after Boas’ death in 1942. The first use of the term was in the journal American Anthropologist in 1948; the term itself represents how Boas’ students summarized their own synthesis of many of the principles Boas taught.

Cultural relativism involves specific epistemological and methodological claims. Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, this principle should not be confused with moral relativism.

How’s this a problem for you, Mark?

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:04:38 +0000

Cultural relativism makes this impossible in today’s environment I’m afraid.

By: Rafique Tucker

Rafique Tucker — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:53:48 +0000

Bravo, Marc. I’ve alwas been distressed at the Buchananite isolationism that the Left now seems to embrace. Sadly it seems that too many of the Left elite nowadays have lost their priorities, their focus, and their moorings. As a center-Left liberal, I’m no fan of the Bush Adminstration. But you know what? I’ll not let Bush prevent me from standing up for freedom. Sites like yours and others prove that there is a righteous remnant of liberals with clarity, but sadly, there aren’t enough of us.

It’s a real shame some of us can’t move beyond Bush hatred, and focus on the issues that matter.

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:39:46 +0000

One visit to Wikipedia is all it takes. Been there done that. I found a long history you left out deliberately. Hindsight makes nice insight looking backward. It’s a different matter at the time. Sebastian Junger would disagree with you too.

By: Eleanore kjellberg

Eleanore kjellberg — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:08:51 +0000

Stay deluded and walk around like a fool! Be a sucker to MSM–do some research, you have the time.

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:44:25 +0000

I don’t believe it. Warlordism is as ancient form of dividing territories. The place has been ruled by it for thousands of years repelling all invaders. It’s nonsensical to claim, and apparently the Soviets get a pass here, that this didn’t exist until we tried to help Massoud and the Mujahadeen.

You have command of a lot of historical events I’ll give you that, but they are columned to add up to one predetermined conclusion: the US did it, and before these dates we had idyllic Noble Savages, living in peace and harmony. It’s false on its face. I feel sorry for someone this biased.

By: Eleanore kjellberg

Eleanore kjellberg — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:04:07 +0000

The Afghan tragedy is the result of a long history of interventions culminating with the American Cold Warriors failure to re-stabilize Afghanistan by de-commissioning the warlords once the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

Selig Harrison, a leading US expert on South Asia, was told by CIA leaders in the 1980’s they had encouraged the MOST fanatical Islamists from around the world to come to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.