| Pages:
1
..
7
8
9
10
11
..
14 |
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wow!
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
Both worldviews are syntonic with the culture we are raised in and become part of what we experience as the self. It is difficult to
see these as simple differences when we attach a lot of value to our own particular, ethnocentric perspective.
|
I had to look that one up.
I'm wondering whether you're part of the; I'm OK, you're OK crowd? That when speaking of cultural differences there is no right or wrong, just
different.
I'd hope not. 
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dave,
You asked: "I'm wondering whether you're part of the; I'm OK, you're OK crowd? That when speaking of cultural differences there is no right or wrong,
just different." I hope not.
This thread is not about me though I will answer your question because context and apriori assumptions are inherent in our perspectives.
I did train for seven years as a Transactional Analyst and Gestalt Therapist but the comments are more Anthropological than Psychological. My graduate
work was in Social Work and my undergraduate was a double major of Sociology and Psychology after a couple of years in Philosophy.
Actually I don’t think I ever was in a crowd, save for bull fights, basketball and football games. Baseball has always bored me. My interests have
been divided about equally among Psychology, Neurology, Sociology, Anthropology and viniculture.
Are you hoping that I am not versed in Transactional Analysis or are you hoping that there are right and wrongs attached to our cultural values and
perspectives and that a more neutral view of these things is somehow anathema to your values. If the former I am very sorry to either disappoint you
or reinforce your opinions. If the latter then we certainly do attach value (good/bad) to our cultural adaptations, we see all others who do not have
the same bone in their noses as we do as “other”, and for many not really human. When Anthropologists enter “primitive” cultures and ask the question
“who are you” the most common response is “we are the human beings”. When asked who those people are that live over the hill they report “they are not
human beings, they are something else”. This of course explains the human tendency towards racism, genocide and other ethnocentric behaviors and
attitudes.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Do you think there would be more or less gun crime if they were legal?
[Edited on 11-29-2008 by Sharksbaja] |
I'll bite.
In the context of this discussion, ending the violence due to illegal drug use and trafficking, I don't think it's a pertinent question. From what
I've read, the vast majority of the people involved in the violence, murderers and murdered, are already armed. In fact, perhaps the presence of guns
contributes to the high murder rate.
But, perhaps you're advocating vigilantiism where law abiding citizens add to the violence by murdering people they think should be murdered.
I find it amazing that people are advocating the legalization of addictive drugs and guns.
The "ni modo" attitude is a new concept for me. I've always thought the behavior was more associated with a "live and let live" attitude.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Cute
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
Are you hoping that I am not versed in Transactional Analysis or are you hoping that there are right and wrongs attached to our cultural values and
perspectives and that a more neutral view of these things is somehow anathema to your values. If the former I am very sorry to either disappoint you
or reinforce your opinions. If the latter then we certainly do attach value (good/bad) to our cultural adaptations, we see all
others who do not have the same bone in their noses as we do as “other”, and for many not really human. |
The latter, but I think you knew that.
And I wasn't asking we. Please, what do you think?
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
"...bones through noses....." - at last this thread has degenerated into something I can understand.
[Edited on 11-30-2008 by Ken Bondy]
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Now that guys got a bone to pick!
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Iflyfishofftopicattimesandfeelsomewhatguiltybutnotmuchifitsforthesakeofhumor
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
That's disgusting Iflyfish. I love it 
carpe diem!
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dave, regarding cultural values integrated into the identity I was just reading an interesting article in Atlantic related to this issue. You might be
interested. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities
k-rico
There is indeed a greater risk of more mayhem by adding more guns to the mix. This is a real dillema. There are often unanticipated consequences to
any social policy and this one can be deadly.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
I found the article interesting. I also find it interesting that you avoid answering my question.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dave,
Not sure which question I am not answering?
If it's the question about whether Mexicans will "take back their country" I sincerly doubt that a popular uprising will do so. Due to the historical
context of the people of Mexico I discussed earlier I doubt that the general populace will rise up en mass against the cartels.
If your question is whether or not I believe that one cultures adaptation is better than anothers I would say that each has it's own survival value. I
would also say that some cultural adaptive strategies are vestigal like the hero fantacies of the wild west that have infected our highest office in
the past eight years. The adaptivity of Mexico to allow everyone to "live and let live" and "ni modo" are not helpful in addressing it's current
dillema regarding their "War on Drugs" if they are to wage an all out "War on Drugs" it may be useful if the government decides to legalize drugs or
co-opt the Cartels as toneart suggests.
Hope this answers your question.
Iflyfish
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
My reading of Mexican history is limited. I recall a series of revolts with some victories and then the army goes back in the spring to their milpas.
I know that they threw the French out of their country. I know they were able to kick the Roman Catholics out; at least those that did not go
underground. I know that via elections the people of Mexico threw out the PRI after 75 years. I would be interested in hearing the views of those who
know more about Mexican history if there is any historical precedence for the Mexican people uprising and overcoming a force as powerful as the
Cartels?
Iflyfish
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
IFly..
I think this is the question Dave is asking:
"I'm wondering whether you're part of the; I'm OK, you're OK crowd? That when speaking of cultural differences there is no right or wrong, just
different.
I'd hope not."
(Unquote):I don't have enough information from Dave to adequately answer the question. For example, is his reference for "I'm OK, you're OK" the book
by Thomas A. Harris, M.D.? If so, it seems he nailed it in guessing your professional background.
Also, if so, I would have to ask Dave, what's wrong with "I'm OK, You're OK"?
According to Wikipedia, The phase "I'm OK, You're OK" is one of four life positions that each of us may take. The four positions are:
1. I'm Not OK, You're OK
2. I'm Not OK, You're Not OK
3. I'm OK, You're Not OK
4. I'm OK, You're OK
Dave, if you are not a #4, than which one are you, and why?
Without first, transparently revealing your hand, your question serves as a set-up. After you answer the question, then support your position. Only
then can we respond to your cryptic question with any valid response. Having said all that, is this really relevant to the topic? I'm not saying it's
not. I just don't see it yet.
Sharks,
In regards to your guns question: NO! The reasons have been thoroughly covered by others here.
Soulpatch,
I know what you mean by not having the time to adequately express everything that is on your mind. I ache behind my eyeballs and my frontal lobe is
succumbing to the pressure.
|
|
|
Sharksbaja
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
Helpless Mexicans? It almost looks that way.
This inability of being unable to defend ones' life and property is obvious. The ease of which innocent peoples lives and homes are invaded would be
lessened if the playing field were leveled.
I'm not suggesting vigilantism but hey whatever works. I am making the point that unlike in the US, home invasions are not met by much if any
resistance and at least the deterrent factor exists.
If you think about it you might realize that millions of Americans possess guns. That can insure their safety. They own them for a variety of reasons
and the Constitution guarantees the right to own and bear arms. Why do you suppose that is??
That doesn't mean however that these millions of gun owners are selp appointed policemen, it just means the bad guys are gonna play hell trying to
take over our counrty and lives.
Now I'll put on my flak-jacket.
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Do you think there would be more or less gun crime if they were legal?
[Edited on 11-29-2008 by Sharksbaja] |
I'll bite.
In the context of this discussion, ending the violence due to illegal drug use and trafficking, I don't think it's a pertinent question. From what
I've read, the vast majority of the people involved in the violence, murderers and murdered, are already armed. In fact, perhaps the presence of guns
contributes to the high murder rate.
But, perhaps you're advocating vigilantiism where law abiding citizens add to the violence by murdering people they think should be murdered.
I find it amazing that people are advocating the legalization of addictive drugs and guns.
The "ni modo" attitude is a new concept for me. I've always thought the behavior was more associated with a "live and let live" attitude.
|
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
Dave, if you are not a #4, than which one are you, and why?
Without first, transparently revealing your hand, your question serves as a set-up. After you answer the question, then support your position. Only
then can we respond to your cryptic question with any valid response. Having said all that, is this really relevant to the topic? I'm not saying it's
not. I just don't see it yet.
|
Iflyfish writes:
| Quote: | You wrote: "When I worked for the city of Oxnard many of my co-workers were Mexican nationals and they could just not comprehend my desire for
more responsibility or career challenge. They thought I was nuts."
Your experience in Oxnard demonstrates clearly what I am saying about these cultural differences, these are bones in our noses that are hard to see
and that also have their exceptions. The Mexicans are right, your are nuts. You also are right, by implication anyway they are nuts
too!
Both worldviews are syntonic with the culture we are raised in and become part of what we experience as the self. It is difficult to see these as
simple differences when we attach a lot of value to our own particular, ethnocentric perspective. |
This implies that both viewpoints are correct. That one's own culture is the sole determinative of right/wrong-good/bad.
Does Iflyfish hold this belief?
Do you?
I don't.
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Quoting Dave:
"I'm wondering whether you're part of the; I'm OK, you're OK crowd? That when speaking of cultural differences there is no right or wrong, just
different.
I'd hope not."
"This implies that both viewpoints are correct. That one's own culture is the sole determinative of right/wrong-good/bad.
Does Iflyfish hold this belief?
Do you?
I don't."
(Unquote): I don't understand, Dave. To me these two quotes by you are contradictory.
On the surface, if I just respond with a yes or a no, I am responding to my interpretation of your statements, and I still don't know where you are
coming from.
According to my interpretation of the question, I would have to answer 'Yes'.
I take the liberal stance, which is "I'm OK, You're OK" based on your first quote, to which you added, "that when speaking of cultural differences
there is no right or wrong, just different." "Just different" shows a liberal, tolerant point of view. It implies whatever. That is saying
"there is no right or wrong" in "cultural differences".
Your fallacy is in this quote,""This implies that both viewpoints are correct. That one's own culture is the sole determinative of
right/wrong-good/bad." (unquote): This I do not believe. It is saying the opposite of your first quote.
"Just different" does not = "right/wrong-good/bad".
|
|
|
ELINVESTIG8R
Select Nomad
Posts: 15882
Registered: 11-20-2007
Location: Southern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
TIJUANA BAJA CALIFORNIA
TIJUANA BC 30 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2008 (AFN).- Los cuerpos decapitados de nueve personas, entre los que al parecer hay dos policías, fueron encontrados
alrededor de la una de la tarde de este domingo, en un camino vecinal de la zona de La Presa.
They better hurry up because nine more were found today decapitated in Zona La Presa. According to Agencia Fronteriza de Noticias two were policemen.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
My bad
Perhaps I haven't framed the question clearly.
Is an action right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture in which it is practiced?
Or:
Are there universal moral standards that can be universally applied to all cultures at all times?
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Who
had better hurry up? And do they need to post back to this string when "they" are done? Like, "Mission Accomplished"?
| Quote: | Originally posted by ELINVESTI8
TIJUANA BC 30 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2008 (AFN).- Los cuerpos decapitados de nueve personas, entre los que al parecer hay dos policías, fueron encontrados
alrededor de la una de la tarde de este domingo, en un camino vecinal de la zona de La Presa.
They better hurry up because nine more were found today decapitated in Zona La Presa. According to Agencia Fronteriza de Noticias two were policemen.
|
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
Perhaps I haven't framed the question clearly.
Is an action right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture in which it is practiced?
Or:
Are there universal moral standards that can be universally applied to all cultures at all times? |
#1. Sometimes, within that culture. Not necessarily in another culture.
#2. Yes, but probably not "at all times".
There are no absolutes, unless you think there are. Then you have to answer those questions for yourself according to your belief system. You have
asked about universal moral standards. I have addressed them for myself by considering a universal perspective. However, not being omniscient, I am
sure I must be missing something. 
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Information needed
Iflyfish,
You seemed to have done a considerable amount of reading and thinking about drug legalization. This seems to be a solution based on education and
choice. I am interested in finding material on studies of the consequences of such a thing. For example:
1. how would we educate people of different age classes.
2. what percentage of people would likely accept this education and not take drugs.
3. how much effort would it take to recover failed individuals.
4. what percentage of people fully recover after a single rehabilitation. Two rehabiliations. three. never recover.
5. what would be the cost per person and per tax payer to 'mend' one who strayed. (an average).
6. how would we deal with people who failed to want to 'mend'. Who would support people who refused to support themselves (see flyfishingpam post 6
months ago).
7. the statistics on the success of recovery based upon the age group of becoming addicted.
8. predictions of the fate of families if either breadwinner became debilitated due to drug addiction.
9. predictions on the success of children as adults of families with addicted parents.
I feel that this sort of information is important before anyone can decide whether legalization is even a viable solution. I also realize that
proponents of each side of the issue would have their own 'data' to support their viewpoints. It would be great if you could provide a study(ies) that
is universally accepted by people of both sides of the issue.
I also realize that the answers to these questions will vary with the drug involved. Being a conservative person I would like to know the worst case
scenario - the most addictive and debilitating drug we have.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
7
8
9
10
11
..
14 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
