Thread for ethical debate:


(Assuming all peaceful/nonviolent measures are ineffective) :


If the Nazis had not invaded any nations, but simply focused on exterminating German Jews in death camps, would that have justified military intervention by the Allies?


If mass genocide takes place strictly within a nation's borders, is it cause for outside armed intervention?


At what point does a nation's (strictly internal) genocide or human rights abuses become another nation's problem?

Let me begin by saying that I'm Asian.

I've noticed that non-white people are rarely looked up to when they go to white countries, but white people are very often looked up to when they go to non-white countries. One could attribute the former to racism, but what about the latter?

I've noticed that even many non-white people will go to lengths to get lighter skin - creams, avoiding the Sun, etc.

When a white American travels abroad, some non-white people will hurriedly associate themselves with "the white foreigner".......but you don't see white people rushing to associate themselves with the "non-white foreigner" in a white country, do you?

All of this bothers me a lot.

I'm coming to the conclusion that many people around the world, even non-white people, subconsciously find lighter skin more attractive than darker skin.

Of course, there are factors such as wealth, power, history, culture, etc. as to why non-white people might hold white people in higher esteem than vice versa. But I think skin color and physical height (Caucasians tend to grow taller than Asians) are a huge factor nonetheless.

For final clarification, this post isn't about white people treating non-white people poorly. It's about some non-white people - in non-white countrified - holding white people in very high esteem and admiration.

Without disclosing my medical condition...........I had to go to the ER. Got blood drawn and a blood test for electrolytes. Had two doctor consultations. That was the extent of the treatment. Then I went home.


I have employer-provided health insurance that might cover the majority of the cost....along with some other out-of-pocket maximum rules that I'm not sure I understand.........and I'm not sure I'm even located in the correct state to qualify for the insurance coverage in this situation (I'm in Texas right now.)


I'm terrified of getting some giant ER bill and the insurance company not paying for it - or, if they do, that they'd pay so little of it that I'd still be stuck with $1,500 or $2,000 to pay. I realize that many not seem like much compared to some unfortunate people's massive hospital bills, but right now, even a $900 bill would be an enormous financial burden. I'm VERY tight on money at the moment - have quite a bit of debt, in fact - and I don't want this to push me into a big financial pit.


It says a lot about the terrible state of America's health care system that a patient like me - who dislikes needles, injections or scalpels - is far more afraid of the financial cost of health care than the physical sensation of needles, etc.


I'm not sure why I'm writing this post, except to just find comfort in the helpful community of DU - it's nice not to feel alone. I'm in my 20s, single, living on my own, my parents are thousands of miles away, and things like unpredictable hospital bills ($600??? or $10,000???) are one of the things that worry me the most.

It's hundreds of dollars - for one month.

It claims I used over 2,500 KwH in one month.

I'm a single person in a 1-bedroom apartment. I have little sense of proportion for electrical terms like kilowatts, but is 2,500 KwH absurdly high for one person? I really doubt I used THAT much!

Can I insist that the power company examine the meter?

How much is a reasonable monthly "average" electricity consumption for one person in a 1-bedroom apartment? Again, I really doubt I used 2,500 KwH.

Some people have protested against the fact that men are often depicted as stupid in movies, sitcoms and commercials, and that violence by women against men on television is often perceived as "comedic" rather than abusive.

And let's be fair; that is a double standard, why should it be any more acceptable for a woman to slap a man in the face than vice versa?


That being said, I think the real reason why such a double standard persists is because of "counterbalancing": Men are typically considered the stronger gender, and historically have had many advantages over women; therefore these double standards are acceptable because they help "balance" things and make the scales more "even."



I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying, I think this is how or why these double standards exist.


Any thoughts?

I'm a pretty stereotypical contamination-phobic OCD person. I can't stand having things like bleach, gasoline, detergent, grease, car motor oil, glue or germs on my clothes or skin. I'm constantly washing my hands to the point where they even crack and bleed. I rinse my clothes again and again.

I throw things away if I think they're too contaminated to be worth keeping anymore. I constantly worry that I tracked chemicals or contaminants on to this or that household surfaces. I have a hard time touching sink handles and faucets with my hands.

It's exhausting and even keeps me cleaning and washing until 2 AM, making me sleepy all day.

I can't afford professional psychiatric help - I'm short enough on money as is.


Does anyone have advice?

A while ago - perhaps decades ago - there was a philosophical movement that went something like this:


"Ethics and morality are relative."

"There are no such things as moral absolutes."

"Everyone defines things differently based on their worldview, and you can't say that one worldview is better or worse than another."





Even more extreme versions went something like this:

"There is no such thing as right or wrong."

"There is no such thing as good or bad."

"We can't know any objective truth with certainty."




That belief seems to have died a quiet death. Nowadays, EVERYBODY argues from a standpoint of right and wrong.


People argue for gay marriage on a basis of right vs. wrong.

People argue against gay marriage on a basis of right vs. wrong.

People argue for abortion on a basis of right vs. wrong.

People argue against abortion on a basis of right vs. wrong.


Etc. etc. You could name a hundred different issues, and people will argue from a standpoint of right vs. wrong.





Seems that there is agreement by many that ethics and morality are NOT relative and that there IS absolute morality - it's just that the disagreement is over WHICH stance is more right.