Do you think countries/cultures should have the right to impose their laws or values on other countries/cultures?
This is the proposition for my paper and I don't know how to go about it. How do you even handle this topic objectively without being autistic or an sjw?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Yes, it's not only a right but a fundamental law of nature. It comes down to two basic things.
Either you select FOR kin, or you select AGAINST kin. Any middle-ground tends to one extreme or another as it becomes more sophisticated and explores its logical boundaries.
yes, with a healthy margin of error
you stop them conducting a genocide but it doesn't really matter whether they eat hummus or couscous
If its wrong to impose your values on others it would be impossible to actually impose this value
>speaking English, accepting Aussie "values", sports, and wearing track suits are all it take to integrate
Kinda triggered desu.
Do you guys have any good historical examples of this going well or not? I was gonna do the paper on russification but it's hard to pick a side on this without being completely polarizing.
I'd say Greenland in it's current state is an example of successful integration.
As a western I have no choice but to say yes.
To some level, perhaps. In the end, it all comes down to your personal opinion, but I think genocide against valueable cultures may be stopped.
Typically the west goes way too far in imposing laws or values, but sometimes it may be acceptable.
But again, this depends on your opinion. If you think cultures have no value, then you may think it's wrong to stop genocide against cultures too.
Only if the country actually has values.
Current Western countries are all nihilistic shitholes that only function because they're wealthy. There's simply nothing to impose.
>move to a new country
>expect you and your children to remain the same culturally
Literally for what purpose? Aren't you moving to another country for a change? Even if it's just to make money don't you think the affluence of your adoptive country has something to do with its culture? Doesn't the poverty of your old country have something to do with its culture?
Fucking immigrants man. If you want to live in an Arabic country why don't you STAY in an Arabic country?
On other countries, nope
On the scum that migrate because their homeland are garbage, obviously
It's insane to see Western nation allow entitled immigrant shits think it's okay to keep living by/try to impose the inferior culture that made their homeland shithole to begin with in the country they fled to because their homeland is a shithole
Bump
Could you guys tell me a little about Russification/Sovietization? I've decided to do my paper on that.
What were the negatives? Positives? This can include Afghanistan.
depends
does the country give them all the rights and privileges as their original natives (like does your tax-payer money go to them as well?)
and
does the country handle governance better than the native's own government
the second one is probably easy, but the second one is the usual reason for the friction (rather be a first class citizen in a third-world than a second-class in a first).
>but the second one
first one*
What else dya need you pommy cuck? Do they have to blow you before you consider them "integrated"?
Nations have a right to impose their culture within their own borders, not outside them
Because sometimes they'd prefer to stay in a country where they don't get bombed or shot amon a regular basis, and where their strain of the religion is not persecuted or discriminated against by the dominant religious interpretations.
Empathy isn't hard if you're not an autist.
en.m.wikipedia.org
If the culture has a shitty practice enforced by nothing but cultural stagnation, it should get removed by a stronger power.
All those things are a part of their culture though, as evidenced by the fact that they bring the same shootings, bombing, and religious persecution with them to the countries they immigrate too.
explore the different paradigms and come to your own conclusions:
realist, idealist, constructivist, etc
your paper is essentially how you come to a conclusion by looking at evidence and reason, not trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached
>they
what's the number of muslim immigrants compared to the subset of this number who shoot, bomb, etc?
>Empathy
get off your high horse, that's not "empathy" to put another group's well being over your own
looking to escape war is a change. you don't need to change your culture in order to escape war
immigrants are changed in any case through inculturation, their offspring especially
yes which is why he's talking about empathy and not putting another group's wellbeing over your own
Islam caused their homecountry to be shithole
Why should they be allowed to bring it abroad?
If your house became unlivable because of a rat infestation, don't insist to bring the rats with you to your new home
Do it on China, user.
Contrast the remarkable success of the unification of the various kingdoms under the Han culture in the past with the ongoing struggle to integrate the Uighurs and Tibetans.
Yeah I'm pretty alright with one culture forcing its values on another if I agree with those values and find them important enough. An extreme example would be one culture putting a stop to another's tradition of human sacrifice, I'd support that, at least in theory.
In reality there'd probably be many more consequences that you'd have to consider before determining if it was really worth it, such as losses on one or both sides in resulting warfare.
Some people move to another country just for pragmatic reasons, like to escape war or reap the benefits of their destination's greater prosperity in comparison with their home country, or both.
They might have no problem with their cultural upbringing and hence just carry it over with them rather than adopt a new culture, especially if they don't actually like their new nation's culture but just tolerate it for the reasons above.
>Some people move to another country just for pragmatic reasons, like to escape war or reap the benefits of their destination's greater prosperity in comparison with their home country, or both.
>They might have no problem with their cultural upbringing and hence just carry it over with them rather than adopt a new culture, especially if they don't actually like their new nation's culture but just tolerate it for the reasons above.
These people are scum and should be dealt with (either with a wall or with deportation)
what caused your text to be shithole
Only two instances that would justify this (that I can think of) would be in response to human rights violations and/or in self defense. The American-Japanese front of WW2 would qualify, I think.
gb2/pol/
With this logic, who's your say I can't expand my borders to impose my will?
In regards to immigrants the answer is 100% yes. Immigrants should always integrate there is no exception.
>don't actually like their new nation's culture but just tolerate it
Fuck them. They're in MY country so they're going to fucking like it or leave. We tolerate their presence not the other fucking way around. Go back to fucking Asia.
you can. Your claim would have to be legitimized through recognition by your peers. A border is only changed or expanded after it has been "won" through bloodshed or diplomatic action, and this change is recognized and respected by others.
absolutley. France's natural border is on the left bank of the Rhine, therefore France has the right to impose their laws/values on the g*rmans living the the Rhineland.
only the qts.
Go back to Europe and Australia isn't even yours
If it helps you argue one point or another, try tying colonialism into it.
Colonialism is basically the idea of moving into a foreign country and not just keeping the laws, values, culture, customs, language, and religion of your homeland, but settling into a "colony" in this foreign land, comprised of other people, homes, establishments, goods, and services that are all that of your homeland, with the goal of expanding the colony's borders and influence through the power of self-contained national unity, to one day overtake/assimilate the foreign land into the power of your homeland. Kind of like a "passive takeover" over a long period of time.
Saying Islam is what caused the middle east to be a shithole is as edgy and teenager tier as saying the Church caused the Dark Ages.
Its completely inaccurate, tries to sum up a millenia of sociocultural turmoil into some shitty altright catchphrase and completely spits in the face of historiography.
Please, we're Veeky Forums, not /int/ or /pol/
Might makes right, cunt
It would be, if the world "except" didn't exist.
I don't think anyone has the right to force values on those in other states. But having mechanizes to enforce a common core value set with in a state is not only acceptable, but a good idea. Every place has a social contract, whether they admit it or not.
You see while differences has some advantages, too many differences can be very harmful. You see this structurally with urban and rural areas. Because of all the interaction in urban areas more rules and norms are needed to prevent and resolve conflict. So while the rule may be annoying the consequence of not having it are far worse, thus the rule was made to start with. Obvious not every rule is perfect, but that is why voting and other such civil actions help regulate the regulation.
The problem now is that it is easier to run away from a problem area then it is to fix it. Often the smartest most capable people are the ones who make it out. Thus things like "brain drain" and huge loss of human resources impoverish the area. This impoverishment often leads to problems and conflict, which leads to more people leaving. Economics are a big factor, but many economic practices are cultural. Look at tipping and low waiter wages.
It can get complex fast, but grenally I have found culture and econmices add up to create living condtions. So changing one can changie the out come. This is why when a contory tries to copy soemthing that worked well elsewhere and doesn't adjust for things it doesn't turn out like they planned.
I want that free tracksuits
Generally what you do is you impose *most* of your values.
Immigrants get treated like shit, generally 'hazed' for the most part. There's tensions, there's unrest, complaints and persecution.
Their children weather this crucible and over time start acting more like their new 'native country' - and the majority of other things are abandoned. Not all though; everyone is hazed, put through the fire, and when they come out he other side they've usually dropped (or natified) most of their 'old' culture, barring a few things they felt strongly enough about that they fought for and kept them even in the face of their metaphorical smelting. These are added, in whole or in minority, to the new receiving culture.
Being an immigrant sucks, but the process benefits both the receiving country and the immigrant's descendants.
That's how the US used to do it, and by god we were good at it.That's why families of Germans, Dutch, Irish, Japs, etc are all basically "American" now.
The simple answer is no. However, how would the imposition that it refers to? It is one thing to require mastery of a native language in your country and acceptance of its laws to allow its entry, another quite different is to value individuals by the culture they carry.
>what's the number of muslim immigrants compared to the subset of this number who shoot, bomb, etc?
Doesn't matter, Islam is wholly incompatible with modern society.
Unless / until there is some kinda Islamic "reformation" that allowed Muslims to live in peace with their non-Muslims neighbors, they should not be allowed to immigrate.
Not him, but you're a complete idiot. If you think defending your kin from two-faced parasites is something that belongs in a containment board of sorts, you're part of what's ruining Western societies.
Whenever people say Islam is compatible with modern society, I tell them that we should import more muslims to "deal with the gay problem" for maximum butthurt
The existence of Muslims in several Western countries living peacefully belies the idea of incompatibility with modern societies. And no, I'm not a Muslim. In Latin America alone, we have more than 100,000 of them without religious terrorism problems.
There are over one billion muslims in the world, and yet every nation they hold a majority in also have major human rights violations. They know this, and spite being the "majority" of peace lovers like the left claims them to be, they haven't changed shit. If we were to take the 99.999999999% of mussie BS the left like to claim, why can't they over-rule the .00000000000001% that impose these laws?
Because the percentage of Muslims who do not understand or respect human rights varies by country. Keep in mind that Western civilization has experienced terrible experiences in the twentieth century such as totalitarian states, racism, and eugenics before spreading widely values as democracy, freedom for women, and others. Civilization is a process of long duration, still unfinished even in Europe.
In short, an individual should be judged by his own acts, not as collective because of his religion, for example.
taoism
/thread
Yeah, it's not Islam's fault women are treated like property, gays are stoned to death and cities are constantly being destabilized by fanatical rebel uprisings and suicide attacks.
Oh wait...
And if your people fucked up bad enough that your country is unliveable, the cost of moving elsewhere is that you must abandon your previous way if life.
You have absolutely no right to another's prosperity AND no compromise.
If escaping war means traveling to another's homeland with a different culture, it sure does mean changing.
Is it even possible to not to?
Plenty of christian secular states with major human rights violations too. Perhaps the religion's got nothing to do with it.