Test how PC you are (Mongol Races)

[King Alexander]

There's a law around here that kids riding bikes have to wear helmets. Is that unacceptable?

That's from the Traffic Code, right? We also have it here, though, the thing is not to be imposed by the police, but kids/adults to actually understand why they need to wear a helmet.

It's like the thing they have in Spain, with freeing bulls to run in the (full of people)streets of a city: if the participants can't understand that some people will be killed(as it's always the case), you can't do anything about it. If they DO understand, but STILL they want to die from a bull's horn, well... it's their life: I won't go into a war(with their country) for this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I guess I put the poll up with the wrong words. I'm trying to make the poll about the wider issue of whether one group has the right to impose its views and morals on another.

I thought we were discussing whether people have the right to interefere with the Mongolians' races. Not whether or not I personally would spend the time and money (both scarce resources that could be alotted to other things, like starving North Koreans) to interefere.

It's not about you personally. If people feel that we, (the collective, pc west) have the right (duty, obligation, wisdom) to ask, demand, pay for, or impose changes in other cultures about trivial things like kids wearing helmets, why don't we feel the same obligation to demand, pay for or impose feeding the starving people of N. Korea? I think the priority that says "we know what is best for you in expressing cultural", but refuses to feed hungery people is very warped. Do you have to "decide" whether or not feeding people is righteous?

 

[The Last Conformist]

In this case, certainly they should use helmets.

As to the wider question, I don't think there's a general answer.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I say force them to wear helmets.

Well these are two different questions. I'd rather interfere with mongolian customs because the cost-benefit ratio is better, not because I think it's more important.

Personal and national cost benefit analysis . Hmmm. With such an analysis you almost always choose not to act if it goes against the tide. Gandhi was an exception. Concentration camp commandants the rule. Schindler an exception. It breeds inaction and acceptance of the status quo.

 

[WillJ]

It's not about you personally. If people feel that we, (the collective, pc west) have the right (duty, obligation, wisdom) to ask, demand, pay for, or impose changes in other cultures about trivial things like kids wearing helmets, why don't we feel the same obligation to demand, pay for or impose feeding the starving people of N. Korea? I think the priority that says "we know what is best for you in expressing cultural", but refuses to feed hungery people is very warped. Do you have to "decide" whether or not feeding people is righteous?

Rights and duties/obligations are different things. This is, if I'm not mistaken, only about rights.

That's from the Traffic Code, right? We also have it here, though, the thing is not to be imposed by the police, but kids/adults to actually understand why they need to wear a helmet.

It's like the thing they have in Spain, with freeing bulls to run in the (full of people)streets of a city: if the participants can't understand that some people will be killed(as it's always the case), you can't do anything about it. If they DO understand, but STILL they want to die from a bull's horn, well... it's their life: I won't go into a war(with their country) for this.

I don't know about where you live, but around here I'm pretty sure the police do impose the restriction of having to wear a helmet while biking (when under a certain age, I think).

If not, I am certain that you have to wear a seatbelt while driving. By law---if you don't, then you could get ticketed. Is that unacceptable?

 

[King Alexander]

I don't know about where you live, but around here I'm pretty sure the police do impose the restriction of having to wear a helmet while biking (when under a certain age, I think).

If not, I am certain that you have to wear a seatbelt while driving. By law---if you don't, then you could get ticketed. Is that unacceptable?

My location can be seen below my avatar. Another thing: when I post, I usually say my ideas not having in mind where I live, meaning, I don't always only support traditions/ethics that come from my country: I don't express the opinion of the population here. I just say my opinion based on my current judgement, every time, and in every case.

[on topic]
Don't get me wrong: the police also imposes one here to wear a helmet, but that's not what I wanted to say... if the people can't realize why they have to wear helmets, accidents will always occur... no matter how hard the police tries to prevent them.

As to your question, that's acceptable for me.

 

[WillJ]

My location can be seen below my avatar.

I think you might have missed the word "about" in what you quoted. I can't tell your local laws just from your location!

Another thing: when I post, I usually say my ideas not having in mind where I live, meaning, I don't always only support traditions/ethics that come from my country: I don't express the opinion of the population here. I just say my opinion based on my current judgement, every time, and in every case.

Okay. I was mostly interested in the laws of your land for the purpose of context, not because I think you're a slave to the opinions of your countryfolk.

[on topic]
Don't get me wrong: the police also imposes one here to wear a helmet, but that's not what I wanted to say... if the people can't realize why they have to wear helmets, accidents will always occur... no matter how hard the police tries to prevent them.

As to your question, that's acceptable for me.

Almost surely the law has some effect. That effect would be that there are some people who don't see a point in wearing helmets, but do so anyway because it's the law and they don't want to get in trouble (and the more severe the trouble, the stronger the effect). Yes, accidents will always occur, but less accidents will occur with such laws. I imagine you agree with me here, but if you don't, it's an empircal question and so it should be easily settled with some statistics.

Now, why exactly are you okay with these laws about kids having to wear helmets and wear seatbelts, yet you're against forcing the Mongolians to follow similar rules? (I can understand being relectuant to due to the fact that they're an independent nation, and if we wanted to interefere we might even have to go to war over this, which would be pretty damn silly... but still, your comparisons with outlawing skiing and such make me think your opposition goes beyond all that. Maybe not.)

 

[King Alexander]

Yes, accidents will always occur, but less accidents will occur with such laws. I imagine you agree with me here, but if you don't, it's an empircal question and so it should be easily settled with some statistics.

I agree with you that these laws help us having less accidents, but if people were mature enough or if they used their logic more and if they didn't had the kind of attitude that "accidents happen only to others but not me", the society wouldn't need these laws, because it'd be common sence what to do.

As far I'm concerned, when I'm driving, I try to be in total control of anything that could go wrong, but I don't do it first for my safety, but for other people's safety first, and I also look my own safety by wearing my seatbelt.

Now, why exactly are you okay with these laws about kids having to wear helmets and wear seatbelts, yet you're against forcing the Mongolians to follow similar rules? (I can understand being relectuant to due to the fact that they're an independent nation, and if we wanted to interefere we might even have to go to war over this, which would be pretty damn silly... but still, your comparisons with outlawing skiing and such make me think your opposition goes beyond all that. Maybe not.)

I don't think it's necessary to go to war about this, neither forcing the Mongols what they should wear or not. They know the risks, they know they could use helmets, and we don't have any right to force them doing otherwise. They don't commit a genocide.

I don't want people starting thinking THAT EASILY that they actually HAVE a right to intervene in a soverign country for ANY reason(I think, that kind of attidude has indeed increased in the past few years). What about if the Mongols considered they HAD a right to intervene on a West country, for ANY reason of theirs?

I don't like giving answers with a 'YES' or 'NO' in matters like these: that's just too overgeneralizing things and it's dangerous to do so. I'd probably support intervening in their country if they commited, say, a genocide, but this isn't the case, and the participants do what they do, on their OWN WILL.

As I understand it, this 'riding tradition' they exercise, isn't about being afraid and use helmets, knee and joint protection, but to actually show they have much courage and the 'childhood' period is over: the kids enter the 'adults world'.
Sure, accidents may happen, but that's a risk they're willing to take. You may find it silly(that risk they're taking) or not, but for them is important. Maybe they want to prove something or maybe they want to 'test' themselves to find out if they have the guts to ride a horse that way, maybe they're proud of what their ancestors did and want to experience the feeling, who knows?

Anyway, my English aren't perfect and the examples I give may not be well understandable. I'm thinking in my language, and some times, I imply things that natives may not think. I don't know if I helped you understand me, as it may seem that some things I said contradict themselves

P.S.: sorry for the previous misunderstanding.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Nonsense. Why on Earth should they wear a helmet? Riding on a horse is a dangerous thing, much more than riding on a civilized motorbike. However, due to the higher speed, head injuries for motorcyclists are more likely and more serious. Plus, modern bikes are constructed like a ramp to catapult you overthe car you just hit (that's why SUVs are so deadly and murderous, again...), with your head first.
Riding, OTOH is mainly dangerous for the limbs and especially the backbone, since you fall from exactly that height were you cannot get a controlled flight. Like the classical cat example.

Just ask Christopher Reeves if a helmet would have saved him...

Of course, whether it is acceptable to expose kids to such a danger at all is a completely different question.
And I'm not able to answer it.
If it is 'only' a age-old tradition, and they enjoy it - fine for me.
If it turns out to be just another business, and they're more or less forced to do it - stop it.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

These are always tough because there are clear arguments for both sides.

1) They should be encouraged to have the kids wear helmets, but not forced to do so. These are Mongols doing a Mongol tradition.

2) I think this is different than the Indian and Pakistani kids used for camel racing throughout much of the Arab world. This is a case of the very poor being exploited by the rich.

3) Every country has things that are crazy to others, but not too crazy in the big scheme of things. Skydiving anyone? Soccer (Football to all you not in the US) is considered dangerous by some for kids since you use your head with no helmet. I know quite a few parents who won't let their kids play it. Silly? Yep.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

"imposition of a moral view" , eh ? Well, I'm always up for that.

I voted Unicef hemets - as I think it's perfectly reasonable to try to protect the weaker or "at risk" members of society (whether it's a society of which I am a member or not). You can also put me in the "ban foxhunting" and "circuses are/were cruel" camps, and I'm a memebr of Oxfam and Amnesty, so I'm probably an interventionist at heart.

But if you want to dramatise it, Ram, why not talk about Rwanda, or the former Yugoslavia ?

Was NATO right to intervene in Yugoslavia, taking its view of the worth of human life at gunpoint to the Serbs ? You betcha - and they should have done it sooner.

Should the West have intervened (again, at gunpoint) in Rwanda, and interfered with the ancient Hutu tradition of slaughtering as many Tutsis as you can get away with ?
Damn right we should have, and it's a serious collective failure that we didn't.

 

[Rambuchan]

"imposition of a moral view" , eh ? Well, I'm always up for that.

I voted Unicef hemets - as I think it's perfectly reasonable to try to protect the weaker or "at risk" members of society (whether it's a society of which I am a member or not). You can also put me in the "ban foxhunting" and "circuses are/were cruel" camps, and I'm a memebr of Oxfam and Amnesty, so I'm probably an interventionist at heart.

But if you want to dramatise it, Ram, why not talk about Rwanda, or the former Yugoslavia ?

Was NATO right to intervene in Yugoslavia, taking its view of the worth of human life at gunpoint to the Serbs ? You betcha - and they should have done it sooner.

Should the West have intervened (again, at gunpoint) in Rwanda, and interfered with the ancient Hutu tradition of slaughtering as many Tutsis as you can get away with ?
Damn right we should have, and it's a serious collective failure that we didn't at the time.

Thanks for your response. As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with the UNICEF demands here. They are insignificant and don't impact the meaning or continuation of the Mongol Races. That's fine on the micro-level.

As for your two macro examples on intervention:

a) Yugoslavia: I don't really know the history of that too well so I wouldn't be able to comment but see the next and the response may be similar.

b) Rwanda: Well your presentation of the case is very much mistaken. This 'Hutu tradition of slaughtering Tutsis' is a complete fallacy, and an ugly one at that. I recommend you read my analysis of that situation in The Divide & Rule Thread I started (which unfortunately no one has continued but I still have a Partition of India article to lay out.)

As a final point, I'd like to say that the spam poll option is not so much of a 'spam' option. I was pretty stoned when I opened the thread and I recognised that. It is very tough to come to a general rule with the issue of 'intervention'.

In the broad case of conflict, I am increasingly interested in the parties involved providing the major solutions, rather than a third party (which often has an agenda). It's very general, I know, but I'm trying. Also on this broad category, I am in favour of third parties intervening so as to facilitate a dialogue between the conflicting parties. Third parties mess things up more often than not.

As for petty cultural impositions, often masked as health & safety or legal compliance measuress, that's another matter altogether. These have a pretty good track record of being exploited by ruling parties to disenfranchise their opponents. Land rights being the classic example.

 

[Hitro]

There is no general answer to the general question you gave.

Have Muslism countries the right or duty to force us to make our women wear burkas? I'd say no.
Do we have the right or duty to prevent a country from exterminating one of its ethnic minorities? I can see the point if someone says yes.

Both are essentially examples of imposing ones morality on another. And while that seems like a morally bad idea at first it is questionable if it couldn't become a morally bad choice not to do so eventually.

There is no perfect solution to this problem.

 

[King Alexander]

1) They should be encouraged to have the kids wear helmets, but not forced to do so.

That's what I think. Encouragement, being informed of the dangers(even by experts/medics) and maybe shown photos of injured men/speak with injured men, but not force them to do so(in this particular case, IMHO).

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Well your presentation of the case is very much mistaken. This 'Hutu tradition of slaughtering Tutsis' is a complete fallacy, and an ugly one at that.

Well, I was intentionally being simplistic, and I fully accept that I was being cavalier in my wording (something which, I feel, your original poll options tended to encourage). However, at the time of the massacres, there was a choice before the West as to get (re-)involved or to view this as somebody's else's problem. I think there was a clear moral prerogative to get involved. The "respecting other's cultures" frequently equates to abandoning the weak to their fate.

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, I was intentionally being simplistic, and I fully accept that I was being cavalier in my wording (something which, I feel, your original poll options tended to encourage). However, at the time of the massacres, there was a choice before the West as to get (re-)involved or to view this as somebody's else's problem. I think there was a clear moral prerogative to get involved. The "respecting other's cultures" frequently equates to abandoning the weak to their fate.

Well I have made the distinction between two situations, Rwanda clearly falls into one:

a) Open conflict, or verging on. (eg. UN involvement to halt genocide)
b) Minor cultural matters. (eg. healthy & saftey brings an end to, or significantly alters, a harmless tradition)

In favour of intervention in the first, oppose it in the second. The West should have re-involved itself in Rwanda.

Actually, having read back on the Divide and Rule article, it strikes me that there is a mid-point, in which b) can lead to a). There is a point where this gets difficult. Land rights again being the classic example. Often presented as a measure of progress, a benevolent gift from one party to another. But this often develops into conflict. That's where it gets interesting IMO.

And yes, I accept my OP encouraged generalisation. I've been living that down the whole damn thread .

 

[Keshik]

It's not specifically there, but if you value the safety of the mongol kids sufficiently to intervene into their cultural tradition and force action, I wonder if you value the lives of millions of north Koreans sufficiently to intervene and provide them food. Your post raised the question in my mind, but it is directed at everyone. If you are going to intervene into the cultural life of foreigners why not do so about something important rather than a stupid triviality.

Doesn't the Korean situation have a lot more to do with their choice of government than with "cultrual traditions"? The Communists are going to starve the people. Case closed. You want to feed them? Remove the Communists. It's a pretty strong possibility that they have WMD, so...

 

[stormbind]

Duh! All that is needed is for UNICEF to sponsor Nike in making jockey helmets in Go-Fasta red, and for Nike to sponsor the winning jockeys. Then all the Mongolian families will want to buy their children a helmet.

 

[Masquerouge]

Just because I'm so sick of helmets being worn at every occasion, to the point that I'm pretty sure pedestrians will have to wear one soon because you can be seriously hurt on the head just by falling when you're on foot, I will go with the traditionnal Mongol hat.

And also I can't help but seeing the helmet enforcment as a nice Western way of saying "these Mongolians are stupid and backwards people hurting their kids", as if we did not hurt our kids in other ways.

So I say let the Mongols ride their way.

 

[Masquerouge]

Doesn't the Korean situation have a lot more to do with their choice of government than with "cultrual traditions"? The Communists are going to starve the people. Case closed. You want to feed them? Remove the Communists. It's a pretty strong possibility that they have WMD, so...

Choice ? You think they have a choice ? Or that they had one ?