Then why not single out Hindu culture?
Maybe you didn't notice but I changed my sentence to be more clear about that. I said this:
It’s a huge problem in Islamic communities[1], among others, and it’s something that doesn’t exist at all in so many other communities.
When you mention one and no other, you place the blame on one and no other. So is your beef with Islam or is it with honour culture?
Both. But for this essay, I was talking about honor culture. I mentioned Islam because I wanted to give an example of why Muslims get offended by their prophet being criticized or "insulted". Also, this honor violence stuff is mostly happening in Islamic communities. One statistic I read was that 95% of all honor violence is committed by Muslims.
Be a purist about this, and hold everyone accountable, or don't call anyone out at all. Because this is a huge global issue, and placing focus on one small part of the world is not very nice to the victims in the rest of the world.
Does saying "It's a huge problem in Islamic communities[1], among others..." solve that problem?
"Does not exist at all" is an emphatic statement with no accuracy behind it. It simply is sensational.
If you think it's flawed, then explain the flaw.
In my community, honor violence doesn't happen *at all*. And there are lots and lots of communities like mine.
Right and wrong are flexible. There are some universals, but much of this changes from culture to culture.
Huh? Just because a culture thinks an idea or act is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Cultures are just sets of ideas. And it's the ideas that are right or wrong.
Imposing your own morals on someone else can be wrong, and it can be right, it depends on the situation, and for certain someone will always disagree.
The only time it's right to impose my morals on another person is if that person has initiated violence on me -- I'll meet force with force in order to restore peace. There are other cases too but I've giving a general idea that covers lots and lots of situations.
And I could give a shit less if the guy who initiated violence on me disagrees with my morals -- he's the one that created a conflict between us, and I'm the one who's going to end the conflict.
We see the effects of this fear, the fear of imposing Western morals on other cultures, all the time. Like in the FGM petition experiment. People were signing FOR FGM.
I'm not familiar with that, but I'll speak generally about stuff. It's wrong for me to impose my morals, i.e. do something to him against his will, unless he has already initiated violence on me (against my will), in which case what I'm doing is restoring peace by meeting force with force.
In your postings you consistently deny instinct and emotion.
No I haven't. You haven't understood me. You shouldn't attribute ideas to me without quoting what I said, and giving an argument for what you think the correct interpretation is of what I said.
I am not going to try to explain to you how this is more efficient than data. Humans are not computers, and should not be stripped of emotional nor of emotional reaction. Logic is not king.
Wait a minute. Did you just equate the human faculty of reason with computers? Today's computers DO NOT have the human faculty of reason. So why are you equating them? It doesn't make sense.
And about efficiency, you seem to be thinking that I disagree with you on this point. But I don't, and I don't really know how you got this idea.
Intuitions (instincts/gut feelings) and emotions are pretty much automatic. They are good/useful because they are faaaaast.
We had a definite testing environment present during evolution, and I assume if logic were king, we would no longer possess gut feelings. But we do.
That doesn't make sense. Gut feelings are part of our inexplicit knowledge. Why do you think that having the faculty of reason means getting rid of our inexplicit knowledge?
Topic: Honor Violence: Why nobody should demand respect