No, that's not what I'm talking about. Apparently I keep failing to explain myself.
...would also need 2 b consistent across cultures.When asking 'which women shldnt have equal rights' answer can't be 'Muslim ones'
-
-
It could be 'women who commit violent crime shld lose their right to freedom for a while' but this wild need to apply to men too
-
and in all cultures if our ethics on this are consistent. If they vary from culture to culture, this is cultural moral relativity.
-
Are you able to say that without relying on assumed-universal meanings of 'man' and 'woman'?

-
What do you mean? If you support equality for all ppl, you don't need to worry abt definitions of gender.
-
That would only become an issue if you felt one gender should have more rights than all the others or similar.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right. Sure. That answer would be hard to defend.
-
(The reason why I replied initially is that you were saying/implying that moral relativity is pretty similar to no morals at all.)
-
I am saying that in the sense that one cannot claim to stand for LGBT rights if one only does so for white westerners.
-
If that disappears in relation to Pakistani or Ugandan LGBTs & u say 'Its their culture to oppose LGBT rights & we shld respect it'
-
Then your ethics are culturally relative & the principle 'stand for LGBT equality' doesn't really exist.
-
No, what it means is that that person is a lazy fuck and makes moral decisions based on literally no knowledge at all
-
Not so much a lack of knowledge but a fear of imposing western values on non-western cultures & that this is a kind of colonialism.
-
Well-intentioned but in practice leads to failing to support the liberals of that society coz no consistency.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
