Humanism

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, I know that humanists maybe mean it well, but people do not fit into the same bill, you know. You cannot unite the people the way you want them to unite, while ignoring everything regarding cultural-ethnic-religious values that have been passed on through centuries.
Humanists want the impossible, and to me, such internationalist ideals are rather dull.
These are the reasons why I oppose humanistic thought. But if humanism has a set manifesto in which the above mentioned things are described, you don't really need to be a humanist to state these things, really.

[frankiej]

You cannot unite the people the way you want them to unite, while ignoring everything regarding cultural-ethnic-religious values that have been passed on through centuries.

These are all things that really don't matter when it comes to survival of a species. People want to hold on to their sense of identity even if it were to bring about the end of humanity.

Everyone getting along regardless of of their culture and ethnicity is all I would ask for.

[Creed of Heresy]

Agreed, the justice system in many countries leaves alot to be desired. My objection is primarily to the point that he has a "human right to true justice" which seems to be equated with that of vengeful murder.
Those are not compatible under humanism and I would object to the idea that it is justice of any kind, never mind true justice.

Sure, you could ask a bunch of your peers about whether its okay to go murder the guy, and trust them to tell you not to.. but the implication is that you should already know that if you subscribe to humanism, which makes the discussion irrelevant.
If we consider the golden rule of morality as an opt in/opt out situation. Then if you breach the golden rule, then you are no longer protected by it. Which suffers a problem of regress. If you murder the person who killed your family, do they then have the right to murder you, and so on and so forth.

This could easily descend into a discussion on the death penalty if I'm not careful which is a thread of its own (and no doubt already done to death).

The death penalty is a simple topic for me: I'm against it. Even if it's meant to execute the guilty, the fact of the matter is this: Do we REALLY trust the government with that kind of power? And given that this is a representative democracy, all it takes is one falsely-accused man being executed, one innocent man killed...to make murderers out of us all.

In such a hypothetical situation, I can't imagine that someone will react rationally. Human beings, after all, are emotional creatures, and even the most rational-minded of us might very well snap under such conditions. One might almost hope their friends would support them...help them, even. One thing that often is such a pain in the ass for us human beings is that we WANT to believe we'd be calm, cool, collected even in the face of the worst tragedy imaginable, after all. Ultimately, the point of going to your friends, seeking their council, is to have them there to reaffirm what you already know if you are a humanist; that taking your revenge by killing the man is the wrong thing to do. People are weakest when they're laid low, after all; it's best to have a failsafe, something for people to fall back on emotionally. Someone in that much despair, given the CHANCE that his friends might help him in what he, at that moment, wishes to do more than anything else, will go to them, hope they'll see it his way. The likelihood that they can stop him, talk him down from it, is much higher if he goes to them with this desire.

Always the little details that can make the most difference. After all, one cannot do the job of five, and everyone needs help from someone else. Easier to let yourself succumb to emotions, even for a few moments, and to therefore walk into a situation where you will be calmed from your emotional distress, than to simply rely solely on rationalization of the self.

Mehmet: It is that thinking that causes so many issues. People who say "it can't be done because we're all different!" If everyone who said that actually said the complete opposite, such moral and ethical standings would be far more pervasive. Humanism isn't very clearly defined by much more than, as previously stated, the Golden Rule. Each humanist is likely to react differently to different external stimuli, and each one will live his or her life differently than the others. Better this way; no dogma or people in charge leading their "flocks of sheep" like the christians so adore to be referred to as.

[Violet]

Humanism is inherently spiciest.

* Violet bats her eyelashes.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You cannot unite the people the way you want them to unite, while ignoring everything regarding cultural-ethnic-religious values that have been passed on through centuries.

These are all things that really don't matter when it comes to survival of a species. People want to hold on to their sense of identity even if it were to bring about the end of humanity.

Everyone getting along regardless of of their culture and ethnicity is all I would ask for.

What the hell is the *survival of the species*?
Do you seriously believe that if it comes to that, countries like the US will save us?
Will the people? I don't think so friend. It's so easy for you to talk a lot here how humanity will unite when it comes to the survival of the species, but I'm sure that even there, the strongest amongst humanity will survive.
And I intend to work so that my own people will be ready for that day, so that we don't depend on the likes of the west.

Yes, people get along when they have to, like in America, where no one has a historical claim on the lands they live on, nor any type of ethnic sense of belonging.
That's why people who would usually kill eachother, like say, a Hungarian and Romanian, can live in peace, maybe go eachother's ways as long as they want.

But if I have to live with a say...another ethnic minority in my own country under a single roof, problems will soon start. Do you count on me to save him from a grand flood? Do you count on my to give him shelter from a nuclear attack? I don't count on him to do these for me, so he kann sich zum Teufel scheren, for all I care.

Mehmet: It is that thinking that causes so many issues. People who say "it can't be done because we're all different!" If everyone who said that actually said the complete opposite, such moral and ethical standings would be far more pervasive. Humanism isn't very clearly defined by much more than, as previously stated, the Golden Rule. Each humanist is likely to react differently to different external stimuli, and each one will live his or her life differently than the others. Better this way; no dogma or people in charge leading their "flocks of sheep" like the christians so adore to be referred to as.

Well, we are different, friend.
We have our differences, which seem to me more than the common points we have. I had to learn your language to communicate with you, I had to read your newspapers, read your history, have some basic knowledge on the religions in your area to actually come to this place and stay more than a day.
I had to show effort to discuss something in common with you.

[NoMoreFaith]

He may well 'go to hell' in a flood, however, the point in terms of survival of a society, is that altruism and working together tends to be more successful.

You limit whom you are willing to offer altruism on a basis of ethnicity rather than species, which is basically all humanism is saying on the matter.

I agree however, that broad altruism such as humanism has a more dilute effect than specific altruism towards only people who share common traits with you.

While I disagree with you on many points, I can understand your vitriol towards western countries, we are hardly paragons of working together.

Strategically however, interest only in your own "kind" is faulty as it creates a minority of your own, which, in terms of morality, can hardly be blamed if they equally consider that you "kann sich zum Teufel scheren" yourself.
In short; you are a small scale majority, which when lacking in altruism for any but yourself, makes you a larger scale minority in world.

It is telling that a country founded on a conception of a fascist state, has had to do its best to outwardly distance itself from the concept.

Probably not for this thread however, but I'd like to discuss it with you at some point, because I do not have sufficient background to discuss it fully without faulty assumptions.

[kılıç_mehmet]

He may well 'go to hell' in a flood, however, the point in terms of survival of a society, is that altruism and working together tends to be more successful.

This is what I just said. I work together with my own society, and provide altruism to my own people, who make up that society.

You limit whom you are willing to offer altruism on a basis of ethnicity rather than species, which is basically all humanism is saying on the matter.

Like offering help to humans, rather than the whole lot of apes?
Is this what you're saying?

I agree however, that broad altruism such as humanism has a more dilute effect than specific altruism towards only people who share common traits with you.

It certainly has to. One must help his own people before lending a hand to others.
We Turks have always concerned ourselves with the well-being of others, before our own. Where did it get us? Nowhere.
And some did not. They have put the wellbeing own their own people above the others. Look where they're now. The EU, USA. 1st world countries, all.

While I disagree with you on many points, I can understand your vitriol towards western countries, we are hardly paragons of working together.

It's not just the west, friend. I do not make distinctions based on locations.
The east, of which we are a part of, has not been particularly helpful in the past either. This is why I lay value on ethnicity, blood and language, because these are the things which unite people.

Strategically however, interest only in your own "kind" is faulty as it creates a minority of your own, which, in terms of morality, can hardly be blamed if they equally consider that you "kann sich zum Teufel scheren" yourself.
In short; you are a small scale majority, which when lacking in altruism for any but yourself, makes you a larger scale minority in world.

Well, I don't know who you describe as a minority, me, as an individual, or we are a people?
Besides, I'm not blaming people. I'm just playing the game as it was meant to be played.
I know that if I would be trapped in a room with scarce food, with two others of the same ethnicity, they will kill me, and take the food for themselves, before maybe killing eachother off.
This is the way it works, friend. I am simply looking after my own people.

It is telling that a country founded on a conception of a fascist state, has had to do its best to outwardly distance itself from the concept.

I don't know what you mean by this, but my ideology does not contradict itself.

---

But I think you think that I think things in terms of individual pursuits.
No. I said it numerous times before, friends. I deal in terms of nations, and numbers.
Givings alms, helping the poor, the traveller and the underprivilaged is a staple of our culture. We help those who in need. But these are things that are done on a personal level, and in terms of numbers, should first be applied to one's own kin, before moving on to the others.

This is why I oppose certain policies of my state, concerning itself with, say, Gaza, while ignoring our own blood kin in Azerbaijan and Turkistan.
Why on earth, I mean? There is an underlying thing associated with it, of course, but that's for another time.