Covering up women

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Perhaps dk will find "incursions and subterfuge employed by NATO nations" at fault for the plight of these young women, or maybe he'll remind us that they should always dress "modestly" so as not to come across as "whores;"

Rape of Minors Worry Parents
By Tabibul Islam World News, 4/98

Dhaka, Apr 8 (IPS) - "Every evening, mothers gather at the gates of the best girls' schools in this city and wait patiently to escort their daughters safely home. ''I personally take my daughter to school and bring her back home because I can't trust anyone,'' said Salina Banu, outside the prestigious Viqarunessa Girls School here.

Fearing their daughters would add to mounting statistics on the rape of minor girls in Bangladesh,
(snip)

Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy... not an Arab State. but I still love you Rick.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Yes! If I were a chair, I would advocate chair rights!
It is not mere existence that implies rights; it is the existence of sentience, intelligence, the desire for rights, and the ability to request them and to seek them. Chairs have none of those things.

The existence of sentience and intelligence doesn't imply that we have certain rights as human beings. Human rights are a construct - there is nothing inherent about them, whatsoever. The fact that human beings have sentience and intelligence doesn't imply that men and women should be treated equally as much as you would like to argue that it does.

The problem that liberals have is how to ground human rights since they have decided to turn their backs on tradition. TRADITIONALLY, men and women have been treated differently. Now, all of a sudden, liberals are making the ASSUMPTION that men and women should be treated equally, but what does that imply? Does it imply that men should be treated more like women were treated traditionally, or does it mean that women should be treated more like men were traditionally? Or perhaps it means both?

Some women, believe it or not, enjoy being treated like a lady. In your warped world, where gender distinctions are not made, women would be denied being treated like a lady by men. As a matter of fact, to treat a woman like a lady would be an injustice according to you. I suppose as long as you keep your warped world to yourself and don't try to impose it upon everybody else, like a Christian fundamentalist, then I don't really care what you believe. If you tell me that you are going to draft my daughters, by force of law if there is a war, then I am going to go to war against you.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You are the one who is making the personal ASSUMPTION that men and women should be treated unequally, so why shouldn't you have to justify your personal ASSUMPTIONS?

See how it works? Non-points are easy to return.


I am not making any personal ASSUMPTIONS about how men and women should be treated. Human rights, in general, and women's rights, in particular, as far as I am concerned, are grounded in TRADITION. I am not saying that all of tradition is good, but one can look at the vast body of tradition and separate the good from the bad.

As a Muslim conservative, I am grounded in the Abrahamic tradition. As a liberal, you are at war with the Abrahamic tradition, and so you must find some other basis to ground your beliefs - what I would call baseless ASSUMPTIONS. You portray yourself as an open-minded, rational free-thinker who has turned his back on superstituous tradition, while at the same time you portray conservatives, such as me, as dogmatic, closed-minded, irrational people. This is your warped world which leads to an "us against them" mentality. According to you, to be liberal is good and to be conservative is evil. You can have you warped world, where gender distinctions are an injustice and women are deprived of being treated like a lady. I love women, as did Muhammad, more than anything else in this life. The soft touch of a woman, coupled with the ruggedness and hardness of a man complement each other in a wonderful, sensual way. I think women are great, and I certainly think that women deserve to be treated better than they are, not only in the West, but also in the Muslim world.

To conclude and summarize, the heart of the conflict between liberals and conservatives revolves around TRADITION. The liberals have turned their backs on the traditional roles of men and women, and so as a result, they are forced to make completely baseless assumptions and ignore traditional gender distinctions. The modern liberals now have a track record, and so we are able to not only compare conflicting traditional beliefs, but we are also able to compare how well the baseless assumptions of the liberals have fared in the real world. I think that if people have an open mind, they may be surprised to find out that the liberals are not as open-minded and rational as they portray themselves to be. The minute liberals become open-minded and rational is the minute they are no longer going to be liberals.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
What, exactly, are you saying about human rights here? Are you trying to argue that being human does or doesn't lead to the right to have human rights? I would appreciate some clarification on this position. Thank you in advance.

Because, if being human doesn't lead to having a right to have human rights, then an argument demonstrating this would be helpful.

Further, if being human doesn't lead to men and women having full access to human rights, an argument demonstrating this would also be rather helpful.

See my last post to Nowhere.

[Dr Rick]

I’ve said several times that the exaggerated form of modesty that regulates some Muslim women represents a non-violent ethnic (not religious) immune response to the social and cultural incursions from abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists. The broad trends that have accompanied the Great Society from 1960s illustrate the nexus between rape, domestic violence, drugs, teen violence and sexual immorality.

You said many falsehoods several times; the above are just some of them. You've repeated them over and over, but you can still be called on them each time they are spewed because they are false.

Islam and Hijab predate socialism, women's sufferage, and modern capitalism by several centuries. None of these were contemperaneous to ancient Islam, but Christianity was. Unlike feminists and abortionists, Christians have been attacking and invading Muslim lands for centuries. From the Crusades to the Bosnian genocide, Islamic people have been forced to fight the Christians. Milosevich is not a feminist, Dick Cheney is not a liberal, and George Bush is not an abortionist; They are all conservative Christians. If you want to blame an external Western source for the the problems of Islamic societies, you can look no further than Christianity

Your story blaming "the Great Society" for Islamic oppression is nothing less than delusional. In reality, the fault of the oppressor lies with the oppressor. Christianity isn't really to blame for Islamic oppression; Islam is. Christianity has its own terrible history of oppression, as well, and even though Christians have been horribly cruel to Muslims, it is the Muslims that must bear responsibility for what they do, just as Christians must for what they do. Your attempts to scapegoat modern social movements for long-standing injustices stand as some of the lamest and stupidest arguments ever posted on these fora.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy... not an Arab State.

So is the UK, but unlike the UK, Bangladesh has a strong Muslim influence. Bangladesh has more in common with other Islamic societies when it comes to rape then with non-Islamic democracies.

You are showing your ignorance, bigotry, and misogyny; this thread is about Islam, not Arabs, and not 'whores':

From the article:

...Girls discovered to have been raped, are usually looked upon with pity rather than sympathy and often they become so isolated in Bangladesh' conservative Muslim society that they resort to suicide.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The existence of sentience and intelligence doesn't imply that we have certain rights as human beings. Human rights are a construct - there is nothing inherent about them, whatsoever.
"Implied rights" and "inherant rights" are not synonomous. I agree we have no inherant rights. Other than the right to try, perhaps.

The fact that human beings have sentience and intelligence doesn't imply that men and women should be treated equally as much as you would like to argue that it does.
But you left out the part where they ask for and pursue those rights. And it's the fact that both men and women are human which implies that women should receive human rights.

The problem that liberals have is how to ground human rights since they have decided to turn their backs on tradition.
Sure, mr broad brush, as evidenced by the mass exodus of liberals moving out of their traditional houses and into tree stumps. And all the liberals forgoing traditional meals in order to feed off of a stomach tube. And all the liberals who reject the traditional brushing of teeth in favor of sandpaper. This is fun! How about all the liberals giving up the tradition of working in order to make ends meet in favor of praying to God for big macs to fall from the sky.

Is it possible for you to realize that your statement simply has no actual meaning due to your over-generalizations?

Now, all of a sudden, liberals are making the ASSUMPTION that men and women should be treated equally, but what does that imply? Does it imply that men should be treated more like women were treated traditionally, or does it mean that women should be treated more like men were traditionally? Or perhaps it means both?
Of a sudden? Women have been struggling for freedom ever since it's been denied to them.

Again, the ASSUMPTION is that humans have rights, and that women are humans.

It means men and women should have the same rights.

Some women, believe it or not, enjoy being treated like a lady. In your warped world, where gender distinctions are not made, women would be denied being treated like a lady by men.
It's a sign of weakness when you are reduced to telling the opposition what they must think. Um, of course many women like to be treated as a lady - that doesn't contradict my position at all, but it does contradict yours! No lady would accept being treated as a second-class citizen! And it's stupid to claim I make no gender distinctions. I make MANY gender distinctions - I simply do not deny women their human rights. Good grief.

I suppose as long as you keep your warped world to yourself and don't try to impose it upon everybody else, like a Christian fundamentalist, then I don't really care what you believe. If you tell me that you are going to draft my daughters, by force of law if there is a war, then I am going to go to war against you.
I oppose tyranny; deal with it. Meanwhile, what if your daughters decided they wished to serve their country by joining the military?

I am not making any personal ASSUMPTIONS about how men and women should be treated. Human rights, in general, and women's rights, in particular, as far as I am concerned, are grounded in TRADITION. I am not saying that all of tradition is good, but one can look at the vast body of tradition and separate the good from the bad.
Of course you are making ASSUMPTIONS about how men and women should be treated. You assume they should not be treated equally. And of course it's bad to subjegate women - therefore we should reject the tradition you advocate.

To conclude and summarize, the heart of the conflict between liberals and conservatives revolves around TRADITION.
Yes, and this is why you have failed here. Tradition is not a reason for anything! It simply is the way things have been done in the past. You have provided no logical justification for your advocation of the traditional denial of human rights for women.

Tradition alone is worse than worthless - it inhibits growth. Without REASONS to support traditions, we should reject them. Traditionally, we enslave each other. Traditionally, we butcher each other. Traditionally, we pollute the environment. Traditionally, we dominate or destroy weaker societies. Traditionally, men exercise dominion over women.

So do you have any REASONS for advocating the tradition of men dominating women?

<snip prattle!>

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am not making any personal ASSUMPTIONS about how men and women should be treated. Human rights, in general, and women's rights, in particular, as far as I am concerned, are grounded in TRADITION. I am not saying that all of tradition is good, but one can look at the vast body of tradition and separate the good from the bad.[/B]

Funny how you're so hung up on tradition. If you followed tradition 1400 years ago, you wouldn't even *be* a Muslim.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
"Implied rights" and "inherant rights" are not synonomous. I agree we have no inherant rights. Other than the right to try, perhaps.

How do you move from an "is" to an "ought"? How does the fact that I AM imply that I OUGHT to have certain rights? You are committing David Hume's fallacy here.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by ZiprHead
Funny how you're so hung up on tradition. If you followed tradition 1400 years ago, you wouldn't even *be* a Muslim.

Your comment indicates that you don't know much about Islam. The Abrahamic tradition didn't begin with Muhammad.

[Timberline]

NonContradiction has tried to turn this thread into a battle between Islam-as-a-whole versus an amalgamation of beliefs that he calls “liberalism.” He keeps steering the debate toward the general question of “which system is better overall.” By doing so, he manages to avoid defending any specifics of Islam, including the specific question that started this thread off:

Does Islam’s uncomfortable, activity-limiting dress code for women make any sense? Whether or not Islam is better “overall” is not relevant to that question.

NC and dk, before digressing about the draft, the Thirty-Years War, pornography, depopulation, and all the rest, you could at least have the courtesy of clarifying your positions on the question asked in the original post. NC, the closest you’ve come to doing that is to say that you wouldn’t be extreme as the Taliban. So, what would you, as a “proper” Muslim, allow? Is it okay for Mia Hamm—and the millions of schoolgirl athletes she inspired—to play soccer in shorts, or is that, too, “immodest”? Drop the generalities and digressions and give us some specifics. Where do YOU draw the line?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
dk: I’ve said several times that the exaggerated form of modesty that regulates some Muslim women represents a non-violent ethnic (not religious) immune response to the social and cultural incursions from abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists. The broad trends that have accompanied the Great Society from 1960s illustrate the nexus between rape, domestic violence, drugs, teen violence and sexual immorality.

All of this is unsubstantiated, dk. Where is your evidence for a causal link between the 'social and cultural incursions' of 'abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists' on the one hand, and the enforcement of strict dress codes for some Muslim women on the other?

Further, what exactly do you mean by 'social and cultural incursions'?

What is an 'abortion feminist'?

Virtue needs no moral justification, and vice can’t be morally justified only rationalized.

No one is claiming that virtue needs moral justification. What is being asked is this: What. is. the. moral. justification. for. covering. up. women..

Answering that covering up women can be morally justified by making some vague appeal to such an ambiguous term as 'virtue' is not enough justification. There is no logical or causal link between covering up women's bodies and virtue.

Morality regulates conduct by animating human activity with a respect for life by recognizing common cause, common sense, and common interest. In more general terms a nation or civilization prospers and grows by solving problems that arise in time with life affirming solutions. Nations and civilization that encounter an insolvable problem die, and are reduce to ruins i.e. death are the wages of sin or you will know them by their fruits. History is littered with failed nations and civilizations.

Gee whiz, dk, what's all this in aid of, then?

A person doesn’t need moral justification to show others respect, good people respect others because it is consonant with their good character.

So what has respect and good character to do with women being forced to cover themselves up in order to prevent immorality in other people?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
See my last post to Nowhere.

Okely dokely, NC. Will do.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Human rights are a construct - there is nothing inherent about them, whatsoever. The fact that human beings have sentience and intelligence doesn't imply that men and women should be treated equally as much as you would like to argue that it does.

So, if human rights are a 'construct,' and human rights are 'constructed' so that all human beings - male and female - have equal access to these 'constructed' human rights - then it stands to reason that men and women, as human beings with 'constructed' human rights, ought to be treated equally. Yes?

TRADITIONALLY, men and women have been treated differently.

Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right, NonContradiction. A better argument for treating men and women differently based on gender is required than some vague appeal to 'tradition.'

Now, all of a sudden, liberals are making the ASSUMPTION that men and women should be treated equally, but what does that imply? Does it imply that men should be treated more like women were treated traditionally, or does it mean that women should be treated more like men were traditionally? Or perhaps it means both?

If you really do require an explanation of what equal human rights for men and women mean, NC, then I would suggest - once again - that a glance at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might indeed be helpful.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
No lady would accept being treated as a second-class citizen!

I just want to say thank you to Nowhere357 for this. A totally quotable quote, if I may say so myself.

:)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
How do you move from an "is" to an "ought"? How does the fact that I AM imply that I OUGHT to have certain rights? You are committing David Hume's fallacy here.

Aren't you committing the 'is/ought' fallacy by suggesting that since men and women have been treated differently in the past according to the precepts of 'tradition,' then they should continue to be treated differently now?

;)

[dk]

Dr Rick: Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy... not an Arab State.
So is the UK, but unlike the UK, Bangladesh has a strong Muslim influence. Bangladesh has more in common with other Islamic societies when it comes to rape then with non-Islamic democracies.
dk: I don’t care, the people of Bangladesh are not Arabs. The people of Bangladesh don’t live in an Arab State. The historical, political, economic, ethnical, cultural, social and geographic circumstances unique to Bangladesh don’t comment upon Arab Nations generally or specifically.


Dr Rick: You are showing your ignorance, bigotry, and misogyny; this thread is about Islam, not Arabs, and not 'whores':
dk: The thread is about Shariah Law (family law), and whether Shariah dress codes are religious, cultural or ethnical has yet to be addressed. Only 12% of Muslims around the world are Arab, and I haven’t a clue why you’ve brought up Bangladesh.


Dr Rick: From the article:
...Girls discovered to have been raped, are usually looked upon with pity rather than sympathy and often they become so isolated in Bangladesh' conservative Muslim society that they resort to suicide.
dk: Lots of newspaper articles say all kinds of contradictory things, so what?

The writer probably spent a week or two on the story, and statements like "usually looked upon with pity" state a personal opinion. Surely don't beleive the author actually read the minds of people that look upon rape, and how exactly does one disern a look of pity from sympathy, empathy, moral outrage or apathy. This is a laugher Rick.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
...the people of Bangladesh are not Arabs...I haven’t a clue why you’ve brought up Bangladesh.

Yes, that's quite obvious.

This thread has not been about Arabs; this thread is about forcing women to cover themselves, and more generally about Islam and the impact it has on women.

Bangladesh, like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan, is predominately Islamic.

Lots of newspaper articles say all kinds of contradictory things, so what?

Your lack of concern about contradictions has been obvious.

This is a laugher Rick.

There is nothing humorous in little girls being raped; your lack of concern about them is now obvious, too.

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Your comment indicates that you don't know much about Islam. The Abrahamic tradition didn't begin with Muhammad.

True, but Muhammad obviously didn't respect the Abrahamic tradition enough to not try to change it.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
NonContradiction has tried to turn this thread into a battle between Islam-as-a-whole versus an amalgamation of beliefs that he calls “liberalism.” He keeps steering the debate toward the general question of “which system is better overall.” By doing so, he manages to avoid defending any specifics of Islam, including the specific question that started this thread off:

Does Islam’s uncomfortable, activity-limiting dress code for women make any sense? Whether or not Islam is better “overall” is not relevant to that question.

I know that you would prefer to focus on the windshield wipers, but if the engine and transmission don't work, then whether the windshield wipers work or not is pointless. If Islam is fundamentally flawed, then women's dress in Islam is rather pointless, isn't it? On the other hand, if Islam is fundamentally sound and liberalism is fundamentally flawed, then the picture changes radically, doesn't it? I am not a stupid man, but play me for a fool if you like.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Aren't you committing the 'is/ought' fallacy by suggesting that since men and women have been treated differently in the past according to the precepts of 'tradition,' then they should continue to be treated differently now?

How am I committing the fallacy? I don't believe that I have made the argument that SIMPLY because they were treated differently in the past, therefore, they should continue to be treated the same way now. Why don't you just focus on what I say, and respond to it, instead of trying to put words in my mouth?

[Timberline]

I know that you would prefer to focus on the windshield wipers, but if the engine and transmission don't work, then whether the windshield wipers work or not is pointless. If Islam is fundamentally flawed, then women's dress in Islam is rather pointless, isn't it? On the other hand, if Islam is fundamentally sound and liberalism is fundamentally flawed, then the picture changes radically, doesn't it? I am not a stupid man, but play me for a fool if you like.

How does one determine if Islam is flawed or sound, other than by examining each of its pieces in turn? Every time a specific, potential flaw in Islam is brought up for discussion, you either ignore it or dismiss it as “not true Islam.” Meanwhile, you remain remarkably vague about what “true Islam” and your own opinions are. I suppose that’s a good debating tactic; no one can attack your position if they’re not sure exactly what it is.

To extend your automobile analogy, you’re like a used car salesman trying to sell an old car without letting the customers look under the hood, kick the tires, or take it for a test drive. All we have is your assurance that it used to be a great car, a long time ago, and handled properly it could be a great car again today. Hell, you won’t even tell us if the windshield wipers work or not. I think I’ll buy my car elsewhere, thank you very much.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
How do you move from an "is" to an "ought"? How does the fact that I AM imply that I OUGHT to have certain rights? You are committing David Hume's fallacy here.
I don't know how to move from is to ought. As it turns out, the same question also applies to your postition, when you claim there IS a tradition so we OUGHT to follow it. You still need to provide justification for your advocation of the domination of women by men.

After 50+ pages, I think we all know that you have no such justification!

How am I committing the fallacy? I don't believe that I have made the argument that SIMPLY because they were treated differently in the past, therefore, they should continue to be treated the same way now.
What was the argument again? What was the justification you provided?

[dk]

dk: I’ve said several times that the exaggerated form of modesty that regulates some Muslim women represents a non-violent ethnic (not religious) immune response to the social and cultural incursions from abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists. The broad trends that have accompanied the Great Society from 1960s illustrate the nexus between rape, domestic violence, drugs, teen violence and sexual immorality.
Luiseach: All of this is unsubstantiated, dk. Where is your evidence for a causal link between the 'social and cultural incursions' of 'abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists' on the one hand, and the enforcement of strict dress codes for some Muslim women on the other?
dk: Open another thread, I doubt you believe current levels of rape, domestic violence, drugs, teen violence and sexual immorality are acceptable. The Welfare State failed miserably. The so called safety net has expanded into a an unmanageable series of bureaucracies that lack accountability. The Supreme Court admits the nation needed another 25 years (and where that number came from I have no idea) of de jure integration. In 1960 the black family had a 30% illegitimacy rate, and today the whole society has a 30% illegitimacy rate. The cost of education at all levels has increased exploded along with medical care. Drugs continue to be an area of concern and they became popular in the 1960s. We have a record number of people in jail at every level, and the number of women incarcerated has increased over a 1,000%. The failures of the great society have become so vast and expansive its hard to be a happy face on domestic policies of the last 40 years.

Luiseach: Further, what exactly do you mean by 'social and cultural incursions'?
dk: Subversive tactics to destabilize a legitimate government.


Luiseach: What is an 'abortion feminist'?
dk: Radical Feminists that fundamentally base their advocacy on abortion rights.


dk: Virtue needs no moral justification, and vice can’t be morally justified only rationalized.
Luiseach: No one is claiming that virtue needs moral justification. What is being asked is this: What. is. the. moral. justification. for. covering. up. women..
dk: I’ve said a 20-30 times, Islamic nations enact dress codes as a response to foreign subversives.


Luiseach: Answering that covering up women can be morally justified by making some vague appeal to such an ambiguous term as 'virtue' is not enough justification. There is no logical or causal link between covering up women's bodies and virtue.
dk: There’s nothing to justify, modesty is a virtue and the exaggerated modesty recently enacted by Moslem nations is a non-violent response to foreign subversives.


dk: Morality regulates conduct by animating human activity with a respect for life by recognizing common cause, common sense, and common interest. In more general terms a nation or civilization prospers and grows by solving problems that arise in time with life affirming solutions. Nations and civilization that encounter an insolvable problem die, and are reduce to ruins i.e. death are the wages of sin or you will know them by their fruits. History is littered with failed nations and civilizations.
Luiseach: Gee whiz, dk, what's all this in aid of, then?
dk: Its called sucker money, and Islamic natins call it economic imperialism. The idea is to make lesser nations dependent upon the US-European hegemony, and once dependent dictate social, political, cultural, economic, envirnmental, family and government policy.


dk: A person doesn’t need moral justification to show others respect, good people respect others because it is consonant with their good character.
Luiseach: So what has respect and good character to do with women being forced to cover themselves up in order to prevent immorality in other people?
dk: Abortion feminists, socialists, and materialistic capitalist elites all share a Malthusian theme that views large Islamic children as a threat to their hegemony. Why? Because these assholes have depopulated Europe and North America, and Islamic families are the fastest grown demographic. In a democratic world demographics are a big deal.

[dk]

dk: ...the people of Bangladesh are not Arabs...I haven’t a clue why you’ve brought up Bangladesh.
Dr Rick: Yes, that's quite obvious.
This thread has not been about Arabs; this thread is about forcing women to cover themselves, and more generally about Islam and the impact it has on women.
Bangladesh, like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan, is predominately Islamic.
dk: So your problem isn’t with dress codes, its with religion.


dk: Lots of newspaper articles say all kinds of contradictory things, so what?
Dr Rick: Your lack of concern about contradictions has been obvious.
dk: Hey, I’m concerned about the media, especially when journalists claim to be mind readers.


dk: This is a laugher Rick.
Dr Rick: There is nothing humorous in little girls being raped; your lack of concern about them is now obvious, too.
dk: No there isn’t, so why are you quoting figures from Bangladesh when 1 in 4 women that attend US Universities have been sexually assaulted. Sounds to me like you’re trying to pass the buck. Maybe the US should be more tolerant and just decriminalize rape, statutory rape, like virtual child pornography, and sodomy... After all it used to illegal for a black to marry a caucasion.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
How am I committing the fallacy? I don't believe that I have made the argument that SIMPLY because they were treated differently in the past, therefore, they should continue to be treated the same way now. Why don't you just focus on what I say, and respond to it, instead of trying to put words in my mouth?

Here's what you said:


TRADITIONALLY, men and women have been treated differently....

*snip*

...Human rights, in general, and women's rights, in particular, as far as I am concerned, are grounded in TRADITION.

:)

[dk]

dk: Morality regulates conduct by animating human activity with a respect for life that recognizes common cause, common sense, and common interest. In more general terms a nation or civilization prospers and grows by solving problems that arise in time with life affirming solutions. Nations and civilization that encounter an insolvable problem die, and are reduce to ruins i.e. death are the wages of sin or you will know them by their fruits. History is littered with failed nations and civilizations.
Luiseach: Gee whiz, dk, what's all this in aid of, then?
I think you’ve asked the wrong question, and while I literally answered it you probably felt my response evasive and unsatisfactory. So let me try to answer the question I believe you meant to ask i.e. What right does an Islamic nation have to enact women’s dress codes?

From a monotheistic perspective morality (moral law) makes it possible for a person to discern God’s plan despite human imperfection. Therefore shariah dress codes serve to inform good Muslim people in a post modern hedonistic world about their proud cultural, humanity and religious heritage. People that promulgate hedonism are not only offensive, spurious and disrespectful but an affront to God and all good Muslims. People have a right to serve their fellow man, and God, and the Muslim State's highest obligation serves this end.

From the perspective of liberal hedonism//materialism||monism||egoism//idealism||utopianism morality constrains human liberty, and therefore requires a positive justification. So my above statement provides from a hedonistic perspective positive justification for theists and hedonists to respect one another, or my statement presents a cause for mutual respect. Nations and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems, and are ruined by the first insolvable problem. If bin Laden proved nothing else on 9/11 it was that terrorism presents a problem that theists and liberal hedonists need to resolve, or that absent a solution terrorism can/will/ought to destroy modern civilization. To this end it becomes critically important that abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists recognize that Islamic dress codes engender a non-violent protest against hedonism. If I’m not mistaken liberal hedonists value diversity, and therefore support non-violent protest as a fundamental liberty (moral tenant).

[Brahma's atheist]

You're right Nowhere, this really is a train wreck, a train with bizzare cargoes in the carriages.
On the issue of rape. Rape in the Muslim world is often used as a method of torture, coercion and humiliation. Many times to get the men do what their told. Also good, modest muslim women in say Afghanistan were attacked in orgies of rape and murder as good muslim men rampaged up and down the country fighting their wars against each other.
dk says rape has increased in the cesspit west. Nonsense. Reporting rape has increased, rape has been recognised as a serious crime, marital rape has been recognised as a crime whereas before it was just seen as marital rights i.e. the woman belonged to the man and had to service him whenever, sounds a bit like Islam saying a woman can't refuse for trivial reasons.
dk mentions prostitutes again. Many cultures have recognised the importance of whores. In fact the church ran brothels in the past as did the Roman state. They act as a pressure valve or something.I guess you didn't read what Jebus said about prostitutes.
dk mentions drugs again. Doesn't Pakistan have the highest number of heroin addicts in the world or at least on the countries in that region? Isn't that great Islamic area famed for it's opiate production?
I think what NC and dk are saying is that women in Islam do have rights in the same way that a one legged dog has a leg and who are we in the rest of the world to impose any more legs on the dog?
This thread is not about Islam specifically as I reiterated a couple of pages ago but about cultural oppression of women. But since it seems to have become so what can I do?
Let me ask this then. What would you do to people who lived in the jungle, whether you're muslim xian or whatever? These people go about in the nude or almost naked. Would you impose modest dress on them? Of course the answer is out there because xian missionarries have already forced them to cover up. But would the muslims just make the women cover up?

[dk]

Brahma's atheist: You're right Nowhere, this really is a train wreck, a train with bizzare cargoes in the carriages.
On the issue of rape. Rape in the Muslim world is often used as a method of torture, coercion and humiliation. Many times to get the men do what their told. Also good, modest Muslim women in say Afghanistan were attacked in orgies of rape and murder as good Muslim men rampaged up and down the country fighting their wars against each other.
dk: The lawlessness and mayhem in Afghanistan follows from the Cold War, not Islam.


Brahma's atheist: dk says rape has increased in the cesspit west. Nonsense. Reporting rape has increased, rape has been recognised as a serious crime, marital rape has been recognised as a crime whereas before it was just seen as marital rights i.e. the woman belonged to the man and had to service him whenever, sounds a bit like Islam saying a woman can't refuse for trivial reasons.
dk: cyber.law.harvard.edu (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw02/csascope.html) reports, “A survey of 6,159 college students enrolled at 32 institutions in the U.S. found: 54% of the women surveyed had been the victims of some form of sexual abuse …snip… 25% of the men surveyed admitted some degree of sexually aggressive behavior …snip…42% of the victims told no one”. While Afghanistan was ravaged by 20 years of (cold?) war between the USSR and the US, our modern liberal democracy has no excuse.
dk:


Brahma's atheist: dk mentions prostitutes again. Many cultures have recognised the importance of whores. In fact the church ran brothels in the past as did the Roman state. They act as a pressure valve or something.I guess you didn't read what Jebus said about prostitutes.
dk: Hey, the decriminalization of prostitution in Europe has brought back white slavery…
”This new generation of streetwalker is different, says Nicola Maria Pace, a prosecutor in Trieste. "My personal observation is that they have neither the look nor the mentality of prostitutes. They are often very young. They're usually resold after being on the streets for a certain time, and taken to a different area.
Most prostitutes are volunteers fleeing poverty, the police say, though if arrested, the girls tend to claim that they were coerced. What the women do not anticipate are the beatings and auctions. Being sold to strangers must be terrifying for those who expected to be managed by their boyfriends or relatives, says Father Piero, who makes weekly prayer and counselling visits to Via Salaria's prostitutes. "Knowing who they'll be working for, that's their only real safety.” --- www.uri.edu (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ukraine/auctioneng.htm)
During the High Middle Ages slavery had virtually been irradiated from Europe, but who can argue with progress?
Time for my morning happy pill.
(snip)

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
No there isn’t, so why are you quoting figures from Bangladesh when 1 in 4 women that attend US Universities have been sexually assaulted. Sounds to me like you’re trying to pass the buck. Maybe the US should be more tolerant and just decriminalize rape, statutory rape, like virtual child pornography, and sodomy... After all it used to illegal for a black to marry a caucasion.

After making light of children being raped, dk now makes more jokes about women being raped and taints his response with racism, to boot

To this end it becomes critically important that abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists recognize that Islamic dress codes engender a non-violent protest against hedonism.

What a silly argument.

If clerics and imans wanted to engage in "non-violent" protest with a dress code, they could wear the burqas

[NonContradiction]

NC:
Human rights are a construct - there is nothing inherent about them, whatsoever. The fact that human beings have sentience and intelligence doesn't imply that men and women should be treated equally as much as you would like to argue that it does.

Luiseach:
So, if human rights are a 'construct,' and human rights are 'constructed' so that all human beings - male and female - have equal access to these 'constructed' human rights - then it stands to reason that men and women, as human beings with 'constructed' human rights, ought to be treated equally. Yes?

Before we move on, you need to concede the point I am making. The question is does being human imply that we OUGHT to have certain human rights? YES or NO? If YES, then how do you avoid Hume's fallacy? I can tell you how to avoid the fallacy, but liberals are supposed to be more rational and logical than us dogmatic, closed-minded, irrational conservatives.

Second, simply because some women's and men's rights are exclusive, that does not preclude mutual rights between men and women. Mutual rights between men and women are known as human rights. Got it?

NC:
TRADITIONALLY, men and women have been treated differently.

Luiseach:
Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right, NonContradiction. A better argument for treating men and women differently based on gender is required than some vague appeal to 'tradition.'

Read my statement above. Is it true or false? I think that we all agree that my statement above is true. Why must you read more into what I say than is there? I have NEVER argued, and would NEVER argue, that ALL traditional morality is good. AS I SAID BEFORE (ARE YOU LISTENING?) AS I SAID BEFORE, some tradition is good and some is bad. It's the responsibility of rational thinking people in the modern world to evaluate the different forms of traditional morality and separate the wheat from the chaff.

What I am arguing against are the false hopes that modern liberals hold out to the masses that some day non-traditional morality will prove itself. It hasn't proved itself, yet. Instead, modern liberals have proved that the non-traditional cure is worse than the disease.

When many modern liberals arrive at moral conclusions, assuming there is no chance of an unwanted pregnancy, that a mother and son, as consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, can have sex with each other, without any feelings of guilt or shame, then they need to examine their fundamental beliefs that lead them to arrive at such absurd conclusions. Modern liberalism is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

Luiseach:
If you really do require an explanation of what equal human rights for men and women mean, NC, then I would suggest - once again - that a glance at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might indeed be helpful.

Please....there is no need to re-post the UDHR. Start responding to some of the issues I am raising about the origins of human rights instead of just parroting what other people say.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
[B]After making light of children being raped, dk now makes more jokes about women being raped and taints his response with racism, to boot Very good Dr. Rick, and this is the dilemma that dooms secular liberals to obscurity and ruin. All they can muster in defense of equality reduces to ad hominem attacks, rationalizations and half truths.


Originally posted by Dr Rick
What a silly argument.
If clerics and imans wanted to engage in "non-violent" protest with a dress code, they could wear the burqas Makes sense, a hedonistic view of human life ought to be silly.

[Dr Rick]

NC
TRADITIONALLY, men and women have been treated differently.

Traditionally, Blacks and Whites were treated differently

Traditionally, Muslims could be refused employment in America just because they were Muslim

Traditionally, Greek men sodimized boys.

Traditionally, Japanese samurai could kill and rape peasants.

Traditionally, Arabs buried their female infants alive.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
Very good Dr. Rick, and this is the dilemma that dooms secular liberals to obscurity and ruin. All they can muster in defense of equality reduces to ad hominem attacks, rationalizations and half truths...Makes sense, a hedonistic view of human life ought to be silly.

Traditonally, dk's posts have always been incoherent rants...

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Traditionally, Blacks and Whites were treated differently

Traditionally, Muslims could be refused employment in America just because they were Muslim

Traditionally, Greek men sodimized boys.

Traditionally, Japanese samurai could kill and rape peasants.

Traditionally, Arabs buried their female infants alive.

Yes, I know. For that reason, I made it explicitly clear that I don't believe that ALL tradition is good - some is good and some is bad. I have yet to see any non-traditional morality that could even come close to being called moral and fundamentally sound..

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, I know. For that reason, I made it explicitly clear that I don't believe that ALL tradition is good - some is good and some is bad. I have yet to see any non-traditional morality that could even come close to being called moral and fundamentally sound..

Earlier in this thread, you correctly argued that Islam broke the tradition of buring some babies alive.

Back then, Islam was the non-traditional new morality that replaced the old tradition of killing female infants, and yet now you are arguing that you have "yet to see any non-traditional morality that could even come close to being called moral and fundamentally sound." So if that is true, Islam, which forbade the tradition of buring female infants alive, had to initially be morally unsound. :eek:

The same argument applies to the traditions of slavery, racism, human sacrifices, and the non-traditional moralities that eventually succeeded them.

You admit that "some [traditions are] bad," so how can any bad tradition be rectified except by something that is non-traditional?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Traditonally, dk's posts have always been incoherent rants... ... often comprising many false accusations.

I'm still wondering how anyone could take what I've written in this thread as "anti-Christian rhetoric"; plus I'm still wondering, among a great many other things, how anyone can insist an academically-highly-regarded reference work is not a source.
Weird !
:eek:

[NonContradiction]

NonContradiction:
How am I committing the fallacy? I don't believe that I have made the argument that SIMPLY because they were treated differently in the past, therefore, they should continue to be treated the same way now. Why don't you just focus on what I say, and respond to it, instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

Luiseach: Here's what you said:

[quote]
TRADITIONALLY, men and women have been treated differently....

*snip*

...Human rights, in general, and women's rights, in particular, as far as I am concerned, are grounded in TRADITION.

Human rights, as well as morality, as far as I am concerned, should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources. That's all I am saying. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows that human rights and morality grounded in non-traditional sources is better. If anything, non-traditional beliefs - such as Marxism/Leninism - have led to the destruction of millions of lives needlessly, while in the West, the non-traditional beliefs of the counter-culture are threatening to destroy the fabric of society.

Now, having said that I believe that human rights should be grounded in tradition rather than non-traditional sources, does that mean that I accept all traditions? Absolutely, not.

[Timberline]

NC, why do you chose to live in the United States? I don’t mean that in an “America, love it or leave it” sense. I’m honestly curious, especially in light of your oft-repeated advice to people in Islamic countries who don’t like living under Islamic rules (“Just leave”). You’ve made it clear that you detest secular democracy and consider it harmful. You say you have two daughters. Why didn’t you already “just leave” to raise them in a proper Islamic society?

Do you not leave because uprooting yourself and your family and moving to another country is far from easy? (If so, please acknowledge that women in Islamic countries who don’t wish to be confined by the uncomfortable, activity-limiting dress code cannot “just” leave.)

Are you on some sort of proselytizing mission? Do you endure living among “liberals” in the hope that you and others like you may someday “civilize” the United States?

Do you not leave because you can’t think of a single Muslim-majority country in which you’d rather live? Honestly, can you name one contemporary Muslim-majority nation that you’d be proud to hold up as a beacon of Islamic civilization—and then explain why you haven’t already “just left” for that nation?

Some other reason?

I expect you’ll evade, ignore, or digress from these questions, as you’ve done with so many questions put to you. But who knows, maybe you’ll surprise me. I’d really like to know.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Human rights, as well as morality, as far as I am concerned, should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources.

So how does one do away with the tradition of slavery? Of racism? Of ordering knights to take back the Holy Lands for Christianity?

That's all I am saying. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows that human rights and morality grounded in non-traditional sources is better.

There were some 200,000 women who were traditionally burned alive for witchcraft that might disagree if they had been given the chance. Ditto for the victims of slavery, of the Crusades, the Pograms and any number of traditions.

History is rife with examples of bad traditions; Each one that is no longer with us had to be succeeded by something new, something non-traditional.

If anything, non-traditional beliefs - such as Marxism/Leninism - have led to the destruction of millions of lives needlessly, while in the West, the non-traditional beliefs of the counter-culture are threatening to destroy the fabric of society.

But so have some traditional beliefs.

By your own admission, some traditions are bad; you are just pointing out that some new ideas are bad, too. But to argue against all "non-tradition" by citing some bad ones from the past is no more valid than dismissing all traditions because just some traditions were bad.

Now, having said that I believe that human rights should be grounded in tradition rather than non-traditional sources, does that mean that I accept all traditions? Absolutely, not.

Then how do you rectify bad traditions if you dismiss all that is not traditional? You are arguing that only traditions are good, but that leaves no way to do away with the bad ones which you have acknowledged exist

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Then how do you rectify bad traditions if you dismiss all that is not traditional? You are arguing that only traditions are good, but that leaves no way to do away with the bad ones which you have acknowledged exist

As I said before, NC does it through irrational rationalizations.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Before we move on, you need to concede the point I am making. The question is does being human imply that we OUGHT to have certain human rights? YES or NO? If YES, then how do you avoid Hume's fallacy?
The supposed fallacy of inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises. In fact, we cannot infer value from objective reality - value requires a valuer, a point of view. Value is relative and subjective.

You say "The question is does being human imply that we OUGHT to have certain human rights?" I bolded the part which provides the relative subjective viewpoint from which we can logically and reasonably infer evaluative conclusions. The fallacy has been avoided since the values are inferred by more than a purely factual basis - the provided viewpoint allows us to include thoughts, feelings, needs, desires.

If YES, then how do you avoid Hume's fallacy? I can tell you how to avoid the fallacy,
Fallacy avoided. Your turn. How does "there IS this tradition" imply "we OUGHT to continue this tradition"?

Second, simply because some women's and men's rights are exclusive, that does not preclude mutual rights between men and women. Mutual rights between men and women are known as human rights. Got it?
Yes. My position is that non-mutual rights cannot be justified. Rights based on gender differences notwithstanding. For example, women should probably receive extra rights due to pregnancy and post-natal demands (leave of absence) that wouldn't apply to men. However, if a man has those same demands, then he should receive those same rights.

AS I SAID BEFORE, some tradition is good and some is bad.
Yes, I get this point also. Hence the question: How does "there IS this tradition" imply "we OUGHT to continue this tradition"? Just for fun you can show how you avoid the naturalistic fallacy; more relevant is that you need to provide justification for the particular tradition which you advocate. This is a long thread, we're not going to hunt for stuff too much. But surely you can provide a synopsis, a summary, of the points you've raised which you claim support your position.

What I am arguing against are the false hopes that modern liberals hold out to the masses that some day non-traditional morality will prove itself. It hasn't proved itself, yet.
What would you consider proof that the tradition of subjegating women should stop?

Btw progress really can't occur when we're not moving. That doesn't mean some things shouldn't be traditions - it means that we need reasons to accept things as tradition.

When many modern liberals arrive at moral conclusions, assuming there is no chance of an unwanted pregnancy, that a mother and son, as consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, can have sex with each other, without any feelings of guilt or shame, then they need to examine their fundamental beliefs that lead them to arrive at such absurd conclusions. Modern liberalism is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.
Identify the FUNDAMENTAL concept violated by liberalism which leads to the mother/son moral dilemma above.

Human rights, as well as morality, as far as I am concerned, should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources.
There is a after all a tradition of people seeking freedom from oppression, isn't that true?

How does "there IS this tradition" imply "we OUGHT to continue this tradition"?
What is the justification for the particular tradition which you advocate.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Earlier in this thread, you correctly argued that Islam broke the tradition of buring some babies alive.

Back then, Islam was the non-traditional new morality that replaced the old tradition of killing female infants, and yet now you are arguing that you have "yet to see any non-traditional morality that could even come close to being called moral and fundamentally sound." So if that is true, Islam, which forbade the tradition of buring female infants alive, had to initially be morally unsound. :eek:

Islam wasn't the non-traditional new morality that replaced the old tradition. The Quran, in many different passages, states very clearly that it is a confirmation of what went before it. The Arabs, of course, knew about Abraham, but they had completely forgotten his monotheistic tradition. Islam was a revival of the old tradition, which appeared new to the people, but it only appeared new to them because they had lost or corrupted the old.

The history of humanity that the Quran portrays is one of human beings falling into neglect and forgetfulness about the Abrahamic tradition, thereby necessitating a revival of the need to be reminded of the old. The old appears new, but it's not really new.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The Quran, in many different passages, states very clearly that it is a confirmation of what went before it.

Islam clearly condones the tradition of slavery.

Please explain how to replace "bad traditions" which you have acknowledged to exist if you do not allow anything that is not traditional.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The supposed fallacy of inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises. In fact, we cannot infer value from objective reality - value requires a valuer, a point of view. Value is relative and subjective.

You say "The question is does being human imply that we OUGHT to have certain human rights?" I bolded the part which provides the relative subjective viewpoint from which we can logically and reasonably infer evaluative conclusions. The fallacy has been avoided since the values are inferred by more than a purely factual basis - the provided viewpoint allows us to include thoughts, feelings, needs, desires.

Fallacy avoided.

I don't see where you have avoided the fallacy. The only way that you can avoid the fallacy, as far as I know, is to have a value judgement as one of your premises in your argument. You could then reach a conclusion which is a value judgement.

My point still stands. Facts about human beings, including their thoughts, feelings, needs, and desires, do not imply any value judgements about human rights.

The following isn't a valid argument:

1) Tom feels hungry.

2) Tom desires food.

3) Tom needs food.

4) Tom has expressed thoughts about food.

5) Therefore, Tom has a RIGHT to be fed and we SHOULD feed Tom.

The following is a valid argument:

1) The Holy Quran says that hungry human beings have a RIGHT to be fed and we SHOULD feed them.

2) Tom is hungry.

3) Tom is a human being.

4) Therefore, Tom has a RIGHT to be fed and we SHOULD feed him.

Premises 2) and 3) are facts about Tom, whereas 1) is a value judgement. This argument is valid because one of its premises is a value judgement, which allows us to infer a conclusion which is a value judgement. The first argument isn't valid because all of its premises are facts.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The following is a valid argument:

1) The Holy Quran says that hungry human beings have a RIGHT to be fed and we SHOULD feed them.

2) Tom is hungry.

3) Tom is a human being.

4) Therefore, Tom has a RIGHT to be fed and we SHOULD feed him.

The following is also a valid argument:

1) The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights (UNDHR) says that All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world and goes on to say that All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

2) The imposition of the burqa upon one group of people but not another is unequal.

3) Women are people

C) Therefore, the imposition of the burqa upon women is a violation of human rights

[Luiseach]

Throughout the 50-odd pages of this thread, I've yet to see a coherent moral justification for covering up women.

I found a very interesting article - entitled Islam and Women's Rights, by Azam Kamguian - the following extract of which relates directly to Brahma's Atheist's opening post:


Veiling (hijab)

One of the most misogynist Islamic laws with respect to women is the requirement for complete veiling (hijab) in accordance with koranic tenets. The wearing of the veil was instituted by Mohammad in the early days of Islam. Within about one hundred years of his death, the institution of veiling and seclusion had been spread all over the Middle East. One and a half centuries after his death, the system was fully established.

The effect of all kinds of veils is the same, the woman is rendered anonymous, a non -person, unapproachable, just a silent being skulking along. She is taboo. The Islamic head- cover mentioned in Koran 33: 59, and the curtain referred to in Koran 33: 53, which was meant to separate the man from the woman. Why is Islam so obsessed with keeping men and women part? Why have Islam gone to such great lengths to maintain control over women?

The main reason for hijab is the need for controlling women's sexuality. Veiling internalises the Islamic notion in women that they belong to an inferior sex, and that they are sex objects. It teaches them to limit their physical movements and their free behaviour. Veiling is a powerful tool to institutionalise women's segregation and to implement a system of sexual apartheid. It signifies the subjugation and servitude of women based on Islamic doctrine and Koranic teachings. Much more than a way of clothing, hijab is the manifestation of an outright Islamic misogynism and an antiquated view on women's status. It is designed to control women's sexuality much more effectively than any other religion or ideological system.

-----. Azam Kamguian, Islam and Women's Rights, Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, http://www.secularislam.org/women/womislam.htm



The article from which the above excerpt has been drawn is located at
www.secularislam.org (http://www.secularislam.org/women/womislam.htm)

It's a fascinating article.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't see where you have avoided the fallacy. The only way that you can avoid the fallacy, as far as I know, is to have a value judgement as one of your premises in your argument. You could then reach a conclusion which is a value judgement.

Well, this won't be resolved here. I notice your selective vision however. The desire for freedom is a value judgement, but a sentence in a book is not.

The claim that people should have rights obviously starts from the desire of people to have rights, so by your explanation my argument would avoid the fallacy.

While your position uses only a statement from a book. That a statement from a book exists is factual, not evaluative. By your own explanation, your position commits the fallacy!

Books cannot make value judgements.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

What is the justification for the particular tradition which you advocate.

Why do you not provide your justification?

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
The following is also a valid argument:

1) The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights (UNDHR) says that All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world and goes on to say that All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. Dogma, how unbecoming and hypocritical from a liberal perspective.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
2) The imposition of the burqa upon one group of people but not another is unequal. Women don't rape men, or sexually molest children. STDS eat the insides out of women, not men. Dogma aint gunna get it. Any solution to the problem of sexual inequity starts with respect for sexual inequalities.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
3) Women are peopleHow insightful, that solves the problem.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
C) Therefore, the imposition of the burqa upon women is a violation of human rights [/B] Burqas aren't the problem they are a symptom.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
Any solution to the problem of sexual inequity starts with respect for sexual inequalities

Generally applying this kind of unjustified proclamation leads to the following 'insights':

Any solution to the problem of stupidity starts with respect for ignorance

Any solution to the problem of Nazism starts with respect for racism

Any solution to the problem of killing starts with respect for mass murder

Any solution to the problem of war starts with respect for warfare

Any solution to the problem of pollution starts with respect for waste

dk tries again
Burqas aren't the problem they are a symptom.

The possibilties with this bit of wisdom are endless:

Nazis aren't the problem they are a symptom.

Murderers aren't the problem they are a symptom.

Morons aren't the problem they are a symptom.

dk observes the obvious
How insightful, that [women are people] solves the problem.

If misogynists would acknowledge this fact, there wouldn't be a problem to solve in the first place.

[hinduwoman]

I have noticed that everytime there is concern over destruction of tradition or decline in morality, the male leaders always focus on how the women dress. Hardly ever on how the men dress. Obviously such concerns are a way to maintain male dominance.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
I have noticed that everytime there is concern over destruction of tradition or decline in morality, the male leaders always focus on how the women dress. Hardly ever on how the men dress. ....

Correct !
Obviously the Great Moral Decline And Destruction Of All We Know is owing to the fact that men no longer wear codpieces.

Bring back codpieces !

Additionally, Victorians used to dress table-legs in chintz sleeves in order to avoid lustful thoughts arising from being reminded of a human leg by a table leg.

Bring back leg-covers for tables !

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The question is does being human imply that we OUGHT to have certain human rights? YES or NO? If YES, then how do you avoid Hume's fallacy?

A linking premise is required to connect the descriptive (or factual) (i.e. 'she is human') to the normative (or moral) (i.e. 'she ought to have human rights').

This linking premise could be 'humans ought to have human rights,' or 'being human means having human rights.' This is the premise which links 'human' with the right to have 'human rights.'

I have NEVER argued, and would NEVER argue, that ALL traditional morality is good. AS I SAID BEFORE (ARE YOU LISTENING?) AS I SAID BEFORE, some tradition is good and some is bad.

So is covering up women to be considered a 'good' or a 'bad' tradition, in your view? :)

[hinduwoman]

NC, what about CHOICE? I know a number of young muslim women who refuse to wear the veil. Will you oblige them to wear it in order to preserve modesty? That is the all-important question. :rolleyes:

[hinduwoman]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97023,00.html

Prominent Saudi clerics and academics warned Wednesday against calls for equality and increased rights for women, saying such efforts aim to make Muslim women more like "infidel" Western types.
Efforts to give women greater rights are part of an anti-Islamic campaign spearheaded by the United States, said 130 Saudi sheiks and academics in a statement obtained by The Associated Press Wednesday.
Women in Saudi Arabia (search) are segregated in public places, they cannot drive cars, and they must be covered from head to toe in public in this strict conservative society.
Islamic laws protect women and their rights, the statement said. It said efforts to change such traditions are "a vicious campaign from (the Muslim community's) enemy, led by the American government, to divert it from its faith."
U.S. criticism of Saudi Arabia's lack of democracy and support for militant Islam (search) in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have forced the government to open up somewhat. Newspaper and magazine articles and television programs began to discuss reform, and even host women, something that used to be taboo here.
The statement said equality between men and women is not possible under Islam.
"Any calls for absolute equality is an illegal and illogical call," the statement said. It said allowing women to drive, a repeated request in the kingdom, would lead to "many evils."

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
NC, what about CHOICE? I know a number of young muslim women who refuse to wear the veil. Will you oblige them to wear it in order to preserve modesty? That is the all-important question. :rolleyes:

No, that isn't the ALL-IMPORTANT question. Perhaps you were not listening or tuned in late; the issue is not about women's dress. It's not even about women's rights in Islam. If Islam is fundamentally flawed, then what difference does it make what the women's dress code is in Islam? Can you wrap your mind around that question and give it the serious consideration that it deserves? If the engine and transmission don't work, does it make a difference if the windshield wipers work or not? Are you following what I am saying here? Now, if people here are following what I am saying, and agree with me that women's dress isn't the main issue, THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP BRINGING IT UP?

I have my theories about why liberals keep bringing these issues up, even though they are not the main issue. There is a perceived payoff, at least in their minds, for attacking Islam on these issues. What many of them fail to realize is that I am able to easily divert attention, with great success I might add, away from these side issues and focus on the fundamentals of Islam and liberalism. Liberalism is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed, and so it's to my advantage to focus on the fundamentals of Islam vs. the fundamentals of liberalism.

[premjan]

it is possible to find a flaw in any idea except a completely useless one.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by premjan
it is possible to find a flaw in any idea except a completely useless one.

How about the idea of the wheel? Where is the flaw there? Certainly, the idea of the wheel is not a useless idea.

[premjan]

OK, you tell me the "fundamental flaw" in Islam. I will try to find some sort of similar flaw in the concept of the wheel.

Moreover, remember that "the wheel" lives in a Platonic world. So what we are actually talking about is finding a flaw in any particular wheel, not in the ideal conceptual wheel.

Islam is a particular religion, not a philosopher's notion of a religion. it is an instance not an ideal.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Now, if people here are following what I am saying, and agree with me that women's dress isn't the main issue, THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP BRINGING IT UP?
It's the subject of the thread. And if Islam insists on denying rights to women, that we have the evidence that Islam is fundamentally flawed.

I have my theories about why liberals keep bringing these issues up, even though they are not the main issue.
I've pointed out that your position requires you to obfuscate. Meanwhile, when asked for the concept which is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed about liberalism, you simply ignore the question.

When asked for your justifications for your position, you simply ignore the question.

The flaws of liberalism are the side issue here, while forcing women to cover up is directly related to the main issue.

I think we all see that you need to avoid the issue! Because you have no justification for your advocation of the denial of full rights for women! Because such justification does not exist!

I'm wrong? THEN PROVIDE YOUR JUSTIFICATION.

[Theli]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
I have noticed that everytime there is concern over destruction of tradition or decline in morality, the male leaders always focus on how the women dress. Hardly ever on how the men dress. Obviously such concerns are a way to maintain male dominance.

How I wish that was true.
Then I would not have to care about what clothes to wear, or even care about wearing any clothes to begin with.
And you could swear yourself free from all responsibility.
How neat and comfortable everything would be...

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Tradition alone is worse than worthless - it inhibits growth. Without REASONS to support traditions, we should reject them.

ASSUMPTIONS alone are worse than worthless - they inhibit growth. Without REASONS to support ASSUMPTIONS, we should reject them. Do you get the point or do you want to continue to be dense?


.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Do you get the point or do you want to continue to be dense?

I'm wrong? THEN PROVIDE YOUR JUSTIFICATION.

You sound desparate to distract from your failure to support your position.

WHY should we continue to honor the tradition you advocate?

[NonContradiction]

NC: Now, if people here are following what I am saying, and agree with me that women's dress isn't the main issue, THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP BRINGING IT UP?

Nowhere357:
It's the subject of the thread.

I have to concede that point; we finally agree upon something. It has become painfully obvious to me that most liberals would rather talk about the color of the wallpaper in my kitchen rather than look at the cracks in their foundation and the hole in their roof.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I have to concede that point; we finally agree upon something. It has become painfully obvious to me that most liberals would rather talk about the color of the wallpaper in my kitchen rather than look at the cracks in their foundation and the hole in their roof.
My experience in this forum is that every subject is open for discussion. It is not true that 'liberals" do not inspect the cracks in their foundation. I recall acknowledging some of your complaints about western society and inviting you to start new threads on the subject.

In this thread, the notion that restrictions on women's rights are justified by the fact that western society is flawed has been examined, the flaws identified, and the notion rejected.

THAT is why I resist the attempt to divert attention from the question:

What is your justification for your advocation of the denial of full rights for women?

[NonContradiction]

Nowhere357:
I'm wrong?

I know that, as difficult as it may be for you, the truth is that you are wrong.

Nowhere357:
THEN PROVIDE YOUR JUSTIFICATION.

Wow! You are being really dense here, but let me try one more time.

Since you reject the most basic traditions of conservatives, you are forced to make some basic ASSUMPTIONS in order to ground what you believe to be right and wrong. What you fail to realize is that your most basic ASSUMPTIONS cannot be rationally justified either. If they could be rationally justified, then they wouldn't be basic ASSUMPTIONS, would they? Why do you demand from conservatives to rationally justify their most basic traditions, yet you don't demand from yourself ANY rational justification, WHATSOEVER, for your own basic ASSUMPTIONS. Why are you being so dense about this point?:eek:

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
:eek:

NC, is this the first time you've used an emoticon in this thread?

:D

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Why do you demand from conservatives to rationally justify their most basic traditions, yet you don't demand from yourself ANY rational justification, WHATSOEVER, for your own basic ASSUMPTIONS.
It's not your place to tell me what I demand of myself.

I have supported with rational justification my position.

I have answered every question you have asked me, or at least tried.

Waving your hands around doesn't always work. The question you keep evading remains:

What is your justification for your advocation of the denial of full rights for women?

It seems to me that if you won't address this reasonable question, this thread should be locked. Just a thought.

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
(SNIP)
What is your justification for your advocation of the denial of full rights for women?
(SNIP)

And you haven't answered any of these questions...
What are the full rights of women?
Where do the rights of men and women come from?
How do the full rights of men and women differ?

[NonContradiction]

NC:
Why do you demand from conservatives to rationally justify their most basic traditions, yet you don't demand from yourself ANY rational justification, WHATSOEVER, for your own basic ASSUMPTIONS?

Nowhere357:
It's not your place to tell me what I demand of myself.

Why do you make it your place, then, to tell me what I should demand of myself?

Nowhere357:
I have supported with rational justification my position.

You haven't supported your ASSUMPTIONS as far as I can tell.

Nowhere357:
I have answered every question you have asked me, or at least tried.

You didn't answer my question above.

Nowhere357:
Waving your hands around doesn't always work. The question you keep evading remains:

What is your justification for your advocation of the denial of full rights for women?

I have said this before, but you must not have been listening. ISLAM HASN'T DENIED ANYTHING MODERN LIBERALS HAVE SAID. Do you remember why that is? It's because modern liberalism came AFTER Islam.

To perhaps better illustrate for you, Abraham Lincoln hasn't denied anything I have said my lifetime. Why? Isn't it because he was before my time? Modern liberals are denying much of what Islam has said in the past about many issues - it's not the other way around. Will you stop lying now? Will you stop saying that Islam denies the rights of women that modern liberals say they have? Islam hasn't denied anything modern liberals have said. It's the other way around. Do you have your facts straight now?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
NC, is this the first time you've used an emoticon in this thread?

:D

Yes, after 50 pages, that is my first emoticon. Congratulations to me.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, after 50 pages, that is my first emoticon. Congratulations to me.

Fun things, emoticons, aren't they?

So, NC, what did you think about my solution to the 'is/ought' dilemma with regards to human rights for all humans, but especially for female humans?

And is there any moral justification for covering women up? Is it a good or a bad tradition, in your view, and what does it say about the status of women's rights as compared to men's?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Human rights, as well as morality, as far as I am concerned, should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources.

Human Rights are rights which belong to any individual as a consequence of being human, independently of laws, traditions, or religions. Laws do not establish human rights; they can only guarantee them as human rights are by definition inherent to being human. Traditions likewise cannot establish or ground something intrinsic to being human; a rule established by tradition is not inherent but instead subject to cultural norms.

The concept and philosophy behind human rights is that certain freedoms and protections transcend all rules, cultures, and religions and that these rights simply are as a natural consequence of being human. This philosophy is illustrated in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which refers to the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and asserts All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The document does not appeal to divinity, law, and/or tradition as its basis; it unequivocably asserts that human rights exist inherently.

NC appears to be arguing that all human rights derive from the traditions of culture and religion and ultimately from gods, but this argument is actually a denial of inherent human rights. God-given or tradition-bound rights are not human rights; human rights are defined as inalienable, and a right granted by a god or tradition can also be taken away.

NC is correct in that all beliefs are founded upon certain assumptions, but the only assumption that can ultimately justify his argument is that there is really no such thing as human rights.

[The Other Michael]

NonContradiction:

1. Don't tell other users they are dense. It is quite possible that their perceived lack of understanding is due to deficiencies in the explanation they were given.

2. Don't accuse other users of lying.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Why do you make it your place, then, to tell me what I should demand of myself?
I have never told you what you should demand of yourself.

You haven't supported your ASSUMPTIONS as far as I can tell.
Just curious - have you supported your ASSUMPTIONS?

You didn't answer my question above.
Hehe. You won't answer my questions, because I haven't answered your questions before you ask them. You are hard to please. I just told my son what this thread is about. He made the sensible suggestion that we should ask to talk with your wife. If we were to do that, I bet she would agree with me!

ISLAM HASN'T DENIED ANYTHING MODERN LIBERALS HAVE SAID. Do you remember why that is? It's because modern liberalism came AFTER Islam.
Will you stop saying that Islam denies the rights of women that modern liberals say they have? Islam hasn't denied anything modern liberals have said.
You deny that Islam denies rights of women, therefore you don't need to justify Islamic treatment of women.

But women's rights are human rights which have been denied to women. Islam grants rights to men that it denies to women (amply supported in this thread). You have been proven wrong.

It is a lie to claim that Islam does not deny full rights to women, and you have failed to justify the continuation of the repugnant tradition you advocate.

*cough*close this thread*cough*

[NonContradiction]

It's amazing to me how arrogant many modern liberals can be. I don't want to say that all of them are arrogant, but many of them are.

For well over a thousand years, the Muslim man has always had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he desired, barring a valid reason which would prohibit her from sexual intercourse. The wife understood that it was her duty to satisfy her husband, and the reasoning behind such a right of the husband and duty of the wife seemed so obvious to everyone involved. If the wife refuses to satisfy her husband, he may look outside the marriage to satisfy his needs.

Life should be so simple - enter the liberals. They have denied the husband to have such a right over his wife, and that she should be allowed to refuse his sexual advances, no reason necessary. Shouldn't the liberals have to offer some sort of rational justification for saying that a tradition that people have been following for hundreds of years is completely wrong? They completely dismiss the obvious reason for such a marital tradition and offer no rational justification in return other than "it's wrong because it's wrong." Women have the same rights and duties of men because women and men are equal, they say. Women and men are equal because they are equal, they assert.

Why is the obvious reason for a Muslim man having such a marital right completely ignored? Why is the reasoning, or more appropriately, the lack of reasoning of the liberals better?

What is astounding to me is how liberals can proclaim all of these declarations about what is good and bad about the Islamic tradition, yet they don't feel as though they have to rationally justify anything they say. If I were to go to the jungles of Africa and tell the people there that what they are doing is wrong and that they should live their lives differently, shouldn't I have to offer them some sort of rational justification for what I am saying to them? Would it be fair to them for me to attack their native traditions and DEMAND them to rationally justify their customs, while at the same time I offer no justification for telling them what they are doing is wrong? This is ridiculous, but this is what many modern liberals do.

Modern liberals should learn how to talk to people with respect because attacking people's traditions is only going to put people on the defense. Perhaps the liberals have many good points to make about why certain traditions are bad and should be abandoned, but their arrogant attitude gets in the way of them communicating with people what is wrong with their traditions. It's the contemptuous attitude that many liberals have towards people of tradition that I find to be absolutely repulsive.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Human Rights are rights which belong to any individual as a consequence of being human, independently of laws, traditions, or religions. Laws do not establish human rights; they can only guarantee them as human rights are by definition inherent to being human. Traditions likewise cannot establish or ground something intrinsic to being human; a rule established by tradition is not inherent but instead subject to cultural norms. (snip)

Abortion feminsts say otherwise. They say a mother''s right to liberty and equality supersede an unborn child's right to life. There is no consideration given for the father's rights. Clearly human beings don't have a right to life in a liberal world, at least according to abortion feminists. What's your next theory.

By the way Islam doesn't attribute human dignity to cultural norms, they believe people are created in God's image like Jews and Christians.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
...Shouldn't the liberals have to offer some sort of rational justification for saying that a tradition that people have been following for hundreds of years is completely wrong?...


This argument you have offered could easily be applied to the traditions of slavery, too.

The "sort of rational" for opposing the oppression of women is the same as the one for opposing slavery; it is a violation of human rights

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by dk
And you haven't answered any of these questions...

Sorry, just saw your post.

What are the full rights of women?
Identical with human rights. I don't claim to know what all the rights should be - I imagine rights change and evolve, and there is no absolute answer.

But I'm completely convinced that slavery is wrong for modern times. It seems to me that denying full rights to women (or granting rights to men which are not extended to women) is a form of slavery.

Where do the rights of men and women come from?
They come from ourselves. I think they are based on our desire for freedom from oppression. If rights come from God, then I think he gave us intelligence, reason, and empathy in order for us to figure them out. I believe attempts to claim that God-given rights are spelled out in this-or-that religious tome are flawed. (I'm on solid ground here I think, especially since you and nc would point to different books, with different lists of rights.)

I believe we're on our own here, but we're not shooting blind, we're not taking random guesses when we claim rights. I think the history of the development of morality (codified moral system) shows a clear direction - towards freedom and responsibility.

How do the full rights of men and women differ?
I see no reason why they should differ at all. There may be valid arguments for extending certain rights based on gender, but the rights would be available for both sexes - they simply don't apply to one of them. For example, maternity leave. If women have that right, then so should all pregnant men!

I now ask the same three questions of you, in the interest of parsimony, or something.

What are the full rights of women?
Where do the rights of men and women come from?
How do the full rights of men and women differ?

In addition, please answer: What is the justification for granting rights to men which are denied to women?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's amazing to me how arrogant many modern liberals can be. I don't want to say that all of them are arrogant, but many of them are.
Tacking on the (bolded) qualifier is remarkable progress. Well done, seriously.

At this rate, and given the rest of your post, I see resolution in only a few thousands of more pages.

So, what is your justification for the granting of rights to men which are not granted to women?

Or do you claim that question does not apply to Islam? If so, explain why please.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
So, what is your justification for the granting of rights to men which are not granted to women?

Or do you claim that question does not apply to Islam? If so, explain why please.

Do you read anything I write? You go right back to your mode of demanding rational justification from the people of tradition, yet you demand nothing from yourself.

Why don't you respond to some of the questions I raised? I already explained, in detail, the rationale behind the husband having the right to sex from his wife. You have completely dismissed those reasons, so what makes your reasoning better? You demand rational justification, but when it's given to you, you just dismiss the reasons, yet you offer nothing in return other than it's wrong because it's wrong.

As far as your question is concerned, I do NOT grant rights to anybody. You keep insisting that Islam denies women rights that you claim women have. Islam was, and is, whatever Muhammad said it was. Muhammad denied the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Crucifixion of Christ, and the idols that his people worshipped. He never denied anything that modern liberals have said for an obvious reason - he came before the liberals. You are the one who is denying many things that Muhammad said, but you twist it around and say that Islam denies women's rights. This is a lie, but many people are not aware of how things have been twisted here. Once people have been informed, and they continue to spread the lie deliberately, because they want to slander Muhammad and Islam, then they are deliberately lying. Once again, the issue is not about Islam denying women rights which you say they have. The issue is about you denying rights which Islam says men and women have. I might also add that Islam says that women have a right to not go to war as men do and that you are denying that right for women.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
This argument you have offered could easily be applied to the traditions of slavery, too.

The "sort of rational" for opposing the oppression of women is the same as the one for opposing slavery; it is a violation of human rights

I know that you keep bringing this issue up, and I am not avoiding you. When I have more time I will respond.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's amazing to me how arrogant many modern liberals can be. I don't want to say that all of them are arrogant, but many of them are.

For well over a thousand years, the Muslim man has always had the right...

It's amazing to me how arrogant many modern liberals can be. I don't want to say that all of them are arrogant, but many of them are.

For well over a thousand years, the man has always had the right to kill his daughter for honor (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030929/325/e9prb.html), barring a valid reason which would prohibit her from being killed. The daughter understood that it was her duty to satisfy family honor, and the reasoning behind such a right of the man and duty of the woman seemed so obvious to everyone involved. If the daughter refuses to satisfy family honor, the whole family may be shamed.

Life should be so simple - enter the liberals. They have denied the man to have such a right over his wives, daughters, and sisters, and insist that they should be allowed to live and make choices for themselves, no reason necessary! Shouldn't the liberals have to offer some sort of rational justification for saying that a tradition that people have been following for hundreds of years is completely wrong? They completely dismiss the obvious reason for such a family tradition and offer no rational justification in return other than "it's wrong because it's wrong." Women have the same rights and duties of men because women and men are equal, they say. Women and men are equal because they are equal, they assert.

Why is the obvious reason for a man having such a right of honor completely ignored? Why is the reasoning, or more appropriately, the lack of reasoning of the liberals better?

What is astounding to me is how liberals can proclaim all of these declarations about what is good and bad about tradition, yet they don't feel as though they have to rationally justify anything they say. If NC were to go to the jungles of Africa and tell the people there that wanted to perform ritual sodomy upon him that what they are doing is wrong and that they should live their lives differently, shouldn't he have to offer them some sort of rational justification for what he is saying to them? Would it be fair to them for NC to attack their native traditions and DEMAND them to rationally justify their customs, while at the same time offering no justification for telling them what they are doing is wrong? This is ridiculous, but this is what many modern liberals do.

Modern liberals should learn how to talk to people with respect because attacking people's traditions is only going to put people on the defense. Perhaps the liberals have many good points to make about why certain traditions are bad and should be abandoned, but their arrogant attitude gets in the way of them communicating with people what is wrong with their traditions. It's the contemptuous attitude that many liberals have towards people of tradition that I find to be absolutely repulsive.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Do you read anything I write? You go right back to your mode of demanding rational justification from the people of tradition, yet you demand nothing from yourself.
Some of it. Not all, and no apology. Rhetoric makes my eyes glaze.

You go right back to your mode of demanding rational justification from the people of tradition, yet you demand nothing from yourself.
What in your opinion excludes people of tradition from being treated as if they were people?

Btw, I've already told you it's not your place to tell me what I demand of myself. Please stop doing that.

Why don't you respond to some of the questions I raised? I already explained, in detail, the rationale behind the husband having the right to sex from his wife. You have completely dismissed those reasons, so what makes your reasoning better? You demand rational justification, but when it's given to you, you just dismiss the reasons, yet you offer nothing in return other than it's wrong because it's wrong.
Because I'm trying to get a response to my question. When I look at your statements as an answer to my question, the result is ludicrous to me, and I assumed that means it wasn't really meant as an answer. Let me show you what I mean:

For well over a thousand years, the Muslim man has always had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he desired, barring a valid reason which would prohibit her from sexual intercourse. The wife understood that it was her duty to satisfy her husband, and the reasoning behind such a right of the husband and duty of the wife seemed so obvious to everyone involved. If the wife refuses to satisfy her husband, he may look outside the marriage to satisfy his needs.
So nc offers as justification for the continuation of the tradition of granting rights to men that are denied to women - the fact that the tradition lets him rape his wife and cheat with a mistress.

Life should be so simple - enter the liberals. They have denied the husband to have such a right over his wife, and that she should be allowed to refuse his sexual advances, no reason necessary. Shouldn't the liberals have to offer some sort of rational justification for saying that a tradition that people have been following for hundreds of years is completely wrong? They completely dismiss the obvious reason for such a marital tradition and offer no rational justification in return other than "it's wrong because it's wrong." Women have the same rights and duties of men because women and men are equal, they say. Women and men are equal because they are equal, they assert.
So nc offers as justification for the continuation of the tradition of granting rights to men that are denied to women - the fact that the liberals don't like the tradition.

AFTER THAT, you just rant for awhile. SO there is nothing more in your justification than this: you like the tradition, and liberals don't. That is not really an argument at all - it's a statement of likes. No reason was offered in support of your position that I could see.

So I ignored it and restated my question. Which still stands. I claim you have no justification. You have no reason other than your own prejudice to offer in support.

[Brahma's atheist]

Have you realised that we are talking about the human rights of half the population of the planet as if we were discussing the giving of rights to animals?
As an illustration of abhorrent patriarchal tradition a man yesterday was sentenced to life improsonment for murdering his 16 year old daughter in an honour killing. This was in the UK. The girl was breaking with tradition by falling for a christian boy, whether he was actually xian or just white I don't know. To save his honour the bastard stabbed her to death, he then tried to kill himself.Would Allah have welcomed him with open arms?
He happened to be a Kurdish Muslim but as various experts pointed out honour killing isn't a Muslim invention it's just a tradition all over the world and part of the control of women, though not exclusively so. So should we keep this glorious trad. Lets revive it where it has been lost.
Did the girl deserve to die for going against her traditional upbringing? Did the fucking dad deserve a medal for keeping up the great custom of honour killing?
The local Kurdish community welcomed the sentence given to the bastard.
Another eg. A man in Iran beheads his 5 year old to save his honour because he suspects she has been raped by a relative.
I'm illustrating tradition and custom which seems to be upheld in Islamic countries though I'm sure it also happens all over the world because trad is being for as being a good thing. Should we be preserving these kind of things so as not to be a liberal cesspit?
It's ironic, as Timberline nearly said, that NC is arguing against liberalism on a product of liberalism, this website, for a society that isn't liberal in most of it's manifestations and in which you could end up persecuted, in prison or disappeared for saying many of the things people say on this site. Also, Timberline, he hasn't answered your question.
Are there no Muslim women on this site who will give their experiences?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I know that you keep bringing this issue up, and I am not avoiding you. When I have more time I will respond.

Thanks, and please address these issues, too:

You've claimed Islam "protects" women. How is it protecting women to make their testimonies and their inheritances worth less than those of men? What protection is afforded a woman whose husband can beat her, coerce her into sex, and divorce her with relative ease? In some Islamic countries, women are flogged for being in the company of male non-relatives; how is that protection?

Furthermore, if it's protection that is the goal, why doesn't Islam give a woman the choice in accepting or rejecting it? Earlier on this thread you proclaimed support for letting those who wish to "leave Islam," but that is not what Islam teaches, nor is it a realistic option for a woman whose passport and finances are controlled by men and who cannot drive or even travel without the permission and accompanyment of a man. How can you base your argument upon the traditions of Islam when your views on allowing people to leave it goes against those traditions?

You've also asserted that:

Human rights...should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources...There is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows that human rights and morality grounded in non-traditional sources is better...I believe that human rights should be grounded in tradition rather than non-traditional sources

There were some 200,000 women who were traditionally burned alive for witchcraft that might disagree if they had been given the chance. Ditto for the victims of slavery, of the Crusades, the Pograms and any number of traditions.

History is rife with examples of bad traditions; Each one that is no longer with us had to be succeeded by something new, something non-traditional.

So how does one do away with the tradition of slavery? Of racism? Of ordering knights to take back the Holy Lands for Christianity?

You've insisted that "honor killings" are not part of Islam; let's assume for the moment that is correct; however, that still leaves it a "tradition." How do you get rid of it?

Tell us how you would rectify bad traditions if you dismiss all that is not traditional. You are arguing that only traditions are good, but that seems to leave no way to do away with the bad ones which you acknowledge exist

[dk]

dk: What are the full rights of women?
Nowhere357: Identical with human rights. I don't claim to know what all the rights should be - I imagine rights change and evolve, and there is no absolute answer.
But I'm completely convinced that slavery is wrong for modern times. It seems to me that denying full rights to women (or granting rights to men which are not extended to women) is a form of slavery.
dk: I don’t follow, when human rights change (evolve) then what do they become? If anything less than a full complement of human rights turns a woman into a slave then motherhood (biology) quintessentially turns women into slaves. In fact anything short of a genetic therapy to transform a women into a man turns a women into a slave.


dk: Where do the rights of men and women come from?
Nowhere357: They come from ourselves. I think they are based on our desire for freedom from oppression. If rights come from God, then I think he gave us intelligence, reason, and empathy in order for us to figure them out. I believe attempts to claim that God-given rights are spelled out in this-or-that religious tome are flawed. (I'm on solid ground here I think, especially since you and nc would point to different books, with different lists of rights.)
I believe we're on our own here, but we're not shooting blind, we're not taking random guesses when we claim rights. I think the history of the development of morality (codified moral system) shows a clear direction - towards freedom and responsibility.
dk: It seems to me any cohesive statement of human rights follows the currents of human ideas/activity/judgment across history marked by religious, cultural, political, socioeconomic, moral and scientific landscapes. Ideas certainly change the course of human history, but its more difficult to say how ideas change the essential nature of human kind, if at all. It seems to me human rights distill the essentials from the superfluous, else human rights serve no purpose at all. In this vein the Islamic tradition requires careful consideration, based upon the merits of Islamic people. If not then why not?


dk: How do the full rights of men and women differ?
Nowhere357: I see no reason why they should differ at all. There may be valid arguments for extending certain rights based on gender, but the rights would be available for both sexes - they simply don't apply to one of them. For example, maternity leave. If women have that right, then so should all pregnant men!
dk: So you desire a reason for men and women to be treated differently, ok. The differences between men and women make children possible, and children are essential to any possible human future. Human rights must by necessity must articulate the essential inequalities and equalities to complement men and women.


Nowhere357: I now ask the same three questions of you, in the interest of parsimony, or something.
dk: Ok, from a secular perspective…
----
Nowhere357: What are the full rights of women?
dk: Women’s rights recognize the essential famine virtues essential to family life and civilization.

Nowhere357: Where do the rights of men and women come from?
dk: They follow from a suitable order with respect to motherhood/fatherhood/childhood.

Nowhere357: How do the full rights of men and women differ?
dk: In a secular sense women carry and deliver life into the world hence are the caregivers of human family, men provide whatever’s necessary to secure, protect, support and honor the life women make possible.

Nowhere357: In addition, please answer: What is the justification for granting rights to men which are denied to women?
dk: There are three primary reasons that reflect the practical realities of human life from womb to grave common cause, common sense and common interest.

[Nowhere357]

dk
I don’t follow, when human rights change (evolve) then what do they become? If anything less than a full complement of human rights turns a woman into a slave then motherhood (biology) quintessentially turns women into slaves. In fact anything short of a genetic therapy to transform a women into a man turns a women into a slave.
Humans rights v1.1? As it happens, women have the right to not get pregnant. They also have the right to get pregnant if they choose. So your objection here is without merit.

My point stands: women's rights are human rights.

It seems to me any cohesive statement of human rights follows the currents of human ideas/activity/judgment across history marked by religious, cultural, political, socioeconomic, moral and scientific landscapes.
Yes. Which doesn't contradict my position. Assemble your "cohesive statement" and notice that, as I said, "the development of morality (codified moral system) shows a clear direction - towards freedom and responsibility."

So you desire a reason for men and women to be treated differently, ok. The differences between men and women make children possible, and children are essential to any possible human future. Human rights must by necessity must articulate the essential inequalities and equalities to complement men and women.
False. Human rights must address rights for humans. My post addressed the gender differences, which you failed to consider.

Women’s rights recognize the essential famine virtues essential to family life and civilization.
What are "famine virtues"? And as far as "family life" and "civilization", don't men's rights apply to exactly the same thing? Then men's rights and womens rights must refer to the same thing. HUMAN RIGHTS.

They follow from a suitable order with respect to motherhood/fatherhood/childhood.
If this is true, then people who can't make babies have no rights.

In a secular sense women carry and deliver life into the world hence are the caregivers of human family, men provide whatever’s necessary to secure, protect, support and honor the life women make possible.
I can grant the "deliver life" thing - that is a human issue which applies to one gender. No problem. The "men's" thing is false in today's world - women bring home the bacon also.

common cause,
common sense and
common interest.
It is not obvious how these things leads to granting rights to men which are denied to women.

Thanks for playing. :)

[Nowhere357]

I wish to add something which I'm not sure nc is aware of.

If a free man and a free woman wish to live a tradition lifestyle, that is thier business. Many western homes follow a similar tradition to the one nc advocates.

The difference is that the women are free to live that way or not, as they choose.

I'm assuming informed consent, and ignoring the issue of brainwashing and indoctrination.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357

I don't claim to know what all the rights should be - I imagine rights change and evolve, and there is no absolute answer.

They come from ourselves. I think they are based on our desire for freedom from oppression. If rights come from God, then I think he gave us intelligence, reason, and empathy in order for us to figure them out.

I believe we're on our own here, but we're not shooting blind, we're not taking random guesses when we claim rights. I think the history of the development of morality (codified moral system) shows a clear direction - towards freedom and responsibility.

I think that you have summed up how liberals view morality. They view it in some sort of Hegelian way, that it evolves through history, and that we are far more morally superior now than the ancient people ever were. After all, they had slavery, right? When it comes to morality, modern is better than ancient, right?

Hegel wasn't a Marxist, but Mr. Marx did adopt much of Hegels philosophy. It appears as though the modern liberals have also adopted much of Hegels philosophy, particularly his philosophy of history and the evolution towards something absolute. Hegel called it spirit, Marx called it materialism, and the liberals seem to be calling it morality. I call it the evolution of stupidity. The liberals are evolving towards absolute stupidity, IMO.

The conservatives are bad because they see the evil of the Communists and the Islamist terrorists, as they call them, but they don't see their own evil. They are sick, blind people, no doubt. However, the liberals are even worse than the conservatives because they don't see that their cure is worse than the conservative disease. Never mind that the liberal ideas of the New Deal and the Great Society were a disaster. Don't disturb the liberals - they are evolving towards absolute stupidity. And they call it morality.

[MollyMac]

Originally posted by Brahma's atheist
As an illustration of abhorrent patriarchal tradition a man yesterday was sentenced to life improsonment for murdering his 16 year old daughter in an honour killing. This was in the UK. The girl was breaking with tradition by falling for a christian boy, whether he was actually xian or just white I don't know.
Point of information: the boy in question was Lebanese.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
I think that you have summed up how liberals view morality.
Thank you. But I speak for myself. I don't want to add to your ability to mischaracterize and overgeneralize.

When it comes to morality, modern is better than ancient, right?
Yes. Just as our scientific understanding is "better". This doesn't preclude the possibility that some old moral ideas may be better than some new ideas. Two steps forward one step back is often the way progress works.

Which tells me it is possible, a priori, that your opinions on tradition in general or on the particular tradition under discussion, may be correct. Justify your opinions, and I'm on board.

But it no longer is a priori, and I claim - again - that you have no such justification.

<snip rant>

[Katarzyna]

Bloody heck! I wanted to read all the responses, but there's 50+ pages of them, so I'll just speak my piece. Or type it.

Forcing women to cover their bodies and faces is opressionl, unless men are forced to cover their bodies and faces in the same way. Adult women should understand the risks and advantages of dressing certain ways, as should the men. Just as men should understand the risks and advantages of dressing certain ways.

And, of course, the right of private association should apply... as long as it's applied equally.

[hinduwoman]

NC, women's choice is the all important question here because it is related directly to Islamic ideology.
The whole thing boils down to a question of CHOICE .
Does Islam give its adherents the choice to do something that does not hurt other people at all?

[premjan]

I don't think the fundamental integrity of relatively wealthier Islamic societies depends in any way upon keeping their women completely covered. However, I should note that most of the time I see both men and women covered in similar ways, in the Arab country where I live (only the color of the clothing is different). Facial covering is not usually observed by women but head and body covering is observed by both men and women.

I think covering up women is a relatively minor thing compared to restriction of their other rights, such as ability to drive, or honor killings. Honor killings are just a barbaric custom (so what if they are traditional). Ritual sodomy is equally barbaric. Modernity largely implies personal choice in many matters where it was not available in the past, mostly because people lived scared rather than fulfilled lives. They didn't feel at home in the world (due probably to disease and scarcity) and hence they reflected their own fear onto their personal rituals and beliefs. Time for Islam also to change, and in time, the African tribes too.

As Jesus said so long ago, it is not what you eat or how you dress that matters, what matters is what is in your heart and what comes out of your mouth.

Seems like an obvious sort of thing. We should take heed of it at least 2000 years later.

[Brahma's atheist]

Quote:Point of information: the boy in question was Lebanese.

Sorry, I must have misheard the news.

There seems to be a lot of repetition because people will not answer the questions put to them straightforwardly. There is a lot of sidestepping and digression and diversionism.Questions seem to be responded to with questions and not answers. I'm sure the thread could have been half the length it is now.

[dk]

dk: I don’t follow, when human rights change (evolve) then what do they become? If anything less than a full complement of human rights turns a woman into a slave then motherhood (biology) quintessentially turns women into slaves. In fact anything short of a genetic therapy to transform a women into a man turns a women into a slave.
Nowhere357: Humans rights v1.1? As it happens, women have the right to not get pregnant. They also have the right to get pregnant if they choose. So your objection here is without merit.
dk: Your statement is right out of lala land. First women do get pregnant, rather abortion feminists say a women has a right to abortion, and abortion is a backstop for failed birth control.


Nowhere357: My point stands: women's rights are human rights.
dk: I’ll take that as a doctrinal statement.


dk: It seems to me any cohesive statement of human rights follows the currents of human ideas/activity/judgment across history marked by religious, cultural, political, socioeconomic, moral and scientific landscapes.
Nowhere357: Yes. Which doesn't contradict my position. Assemble your "cohesive statement" and notice that, as I said, "the development of morality (codified moral system) shows a clear direction - towards freedom and responsibility."
dk: You position is doctrinal completely absent support.


dk: So you desire a reason for men and women to be treated differently, ok. The differences between men and women make children possible, and children are essential to any possible human future. Human rights must articulate the essential inequalities and equalities to complement men and women.
Nowhere357: False. Human rights must address rights for humans. My post addressed the gender differences, which you failed to consider.
dk: Another doctrinal statement, completely unsupported and in my opinion unsupportable.


dk: Women’s rights recognize the essential feminine virtues essential to family life and civilization.
Nowhere357: What are "famine virtues"? And as far as "family life" and "civilization", don't men's rights apply to exactly the same thing? Then men's rights and womens rights must refer to the same thing. HUMAN RIGHTS.
dk: Women carry, deliver into the world and nurture human life.


dk: They follow from a suitable order with respect to motherhood/fatherhood/childhood.
Nowhere357: If this is true, then people who can't make babies have no rights.
dk: Another unsupported dogmatic statement. Women complement men, and visa versa. Its abortion feminists and other eugenic Malthusians that indentify femininity and masculinity as the source of all human problem (inequities), and to solve the problem they prescribe abortion, psychotherapy, doctor assisted suicide, indoctrination rehab, confinement and happy pills as the best possible cure.


dk: In a secular sense women carry and deliver life into the world hence are the caregivers of human family, men provide whatever’s necessary to secure, protect, support and honor the life women make possible.
Nowhere357: I can grant the "deliver life" thing - that is a human issue which applies to one gender. No problem. The "men's" thing is false in today's world - women bring home the bacon also.
dk: Everything people do in the light of good and evil makes them more human, not less. When [wo]men fail to animate their life with a proper respect for themselves and others they cut themselves off from the tree of life. Once cut off from life death becomes a person’s master and fear an intimate companion.


dk: common cause,
common sense and
common interest.
Nowhere357: It is not obvious how these things leads to granting rights to men which are denied to women.
Thanks for playing.
dk: It is made perfectly obvious by what good people willingly suffer for the sake of thier children and families, and what usurpers force children to suffer to manufacture an enequity out of an inequality. Abortion feminists teach children that liberty makes them equal and their own bodies make them inequities. To prove the point they debase human sexuality/gender/enactments as a triumph of sexual liberty/technology over death. What a sick narcissistic world! It’s a culture of death where the solution to all human problems becomes death, under the auspices that all human inequities follow from human inequalities. Its a cookie cutter approach to human life where people are engineered to specification by the elite class, and people that refuse to conform get labeled deformed (iniquities). Once labeled deformed by the omnipotent apparatus manifested in a wholly integrated systematic materialistic approach to society/culture/government people have no value, and human life reduces to an hedonistic exercise in desire gratification. In such a mechanical world poeple gratify themselves on other cookies as they please, and when they get detached, confused, obese and depressed from a depraved self consuming existence they take a happy pill to feel better and die. Islam doesn't conform to our cookie cutter society/culture/governments, and that's what Islamic dress codes are all about...That's why Islamic nations enact them, and why abortion feminists, socialists and materialistic capitalists detest them.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
When it comes to morality, modern is better than ancient, right?

Nowhere357:
Yes. Just as our scientific understanding is "better". This doesn't preclude the possibility that some old moral ideas may be better than some new ideas. Two steps forward one step back is often the way progress works.

First, it's a fallacy to compare moral understanding with scientific understanding. Second, I don't think that modern man is morally superior to the ancient Greeks or Arabs, but you are welcome to RATIONALLY JUSTIFY your position. I think that it's nothing more than prejudice on your part for you to think that modern man is morally superior, but support your position. I think one step forward and two steps backwards better illustrates your position, but that is my judgement.

Nowhere357:
Justify your opinions, and I'm on board.

Shouldn't you have to go first in the rational justification game that you want to play? Shouldn't you be the one to make the FIRST move here since you are the one who is claiming that modern man is morally superior to ancient people? You really know how to twist everything around. You claim that modern man is morally superior to ancient people, yet you want everybody to else to do all of the rational justification.

P.S. You are a lot like a white racist who believes that he is racially superior to black people, yet you want black people to rationally justify themselves. Shouldn't white racists have to rationally justify why they are superior to black people? Why should black people have to justify themselves?

Similarly, why shouldn't modern man have to be the one who has to RATIONALLY JUSTIFY why he is MORALLY SUPERIOR to ancient people? Why shouldn't modern man have to justify his claims? Why should blacks have to justify themselves to white racists? Why shouldn't modern man have to justify himself? Do you get the point or do you want to continue to be obtuse since I can't use the word dense?

[premjan]

is like philosophy. it progresses very slowly compared to science (if at all much).

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by premjan Modernity largely implies personal choice in many matters where it was not available in the past, mostly because people lived scared rather than fulfilled lives. They didn't feel at home in the world (due probably to disease and scarcity) and hence they reflected their own fear onto their personal rituals and beliefs. Time for Islam also to change, and in time, the African tribes too.


I don't see why Islam MUST change. Do you mean that Muslims should change or do you mean that Islam should change?

Either way, what you are implying is that the West, with its evolved, and still evolving, code of ethics, is morally superior to Islam and the African tribes. If you think that you are morally superior, then why shouldn't you have to justify, along with Nowhere357, why you are morally superior? Isn't this what the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was all about? Wasn't it about moral superiority?

[Arctish]

dk I am having a lot of trouble tracking down the writings of " abortion feminists ". Apparently they don't identify themselves as such. Can you give me the names of three abortion feminists so that I may read what they propose myself?

[lpetrich]

In fact, I've found lots of references to "pro-abortion feminists" -- but none to "abortion feminists" without the "pro-".

So only dk seems to know who "abortion feminists" are.

[hinduwoman]

NC, my question about choice?
What harm do women do if they are not covered by the veil?
If no harm is done then why does Islamists want them to cover up even when they themselves do not want to?

For example in Kashmir a militant group beheaded four women for not wearing burqha even after repeated warnings to do so. It sent the sale of burqhas soaring. Do you think the militants did right and will go to Islamic heaven for ths?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
NC, my question about choice?
What harm do women do if they are not covered by the veil?
If no harm is done then why does Islamists want them to cover up even when they themselves do not want to?

I thought that we established, over 50 pages ago, that the issue isn't about women's or men's clothing? The strategy of the liberals that has emerged here is very clear - claim moral superiority and make the other person justify why he and his religion are so evil. Until the liberals can rationally justify why they are morally superior to anybody else, then they don't have a case. They have to stop playing the game of claiming moral superiority and putting everybody else on the defense, while at the same time they feel as though they don't have to justify their own claim to moral superiority.

Originally posted by hinduwoman
For example in Kashmir a militant group beheaded four women for not wearing burqha even after repeated warnings to do so. It sent the sale of burqhas soaring. Do you think the militants did right and will go to Islamic heaven for ths?

Why do liberals keep bring up examples of MILITANT Muslims when they are talking about Islam? Why? Why do they keep bringing up honor killings among a small minority of Muslims as if this is representative of Islam? Why are the morally superior liberals, at least according to themselves, having to resort to such low-ball tactics if they are so morally superior? Why do they keep associating the Burqa with Islam, even though it has been pointed out to them, many times in this thread, that there is NOTHING in Islam that requires women to wear pup tents over themselves? Why do the morally superior liberals keep associating with Islam all of these negative things which have nothing to do with Islam, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to them the difference? Why? Why? Why? We all know why, so shall we stop playing games here?

Second, MOST groups that I can think of have had their share of militants. The Christians have had their abortion clinic terrorists and neo-Nazi-skinhead-KKK types. Do I associate what they do with Christianity, even though they are burning the 20 ft. crosses in my face? Similarly, the liberals have had their share of militant radicals in the 60's that committed acts of violence to further their liberal agenda. Even today, environmentalist radical liberals have been torching SUV's as a way of protesting what America is doing to the enironment. Do I associate what they do with mainstream liberalism in America? Why do the liberals keep pointing to the Muslim militants and forget about their OWN radical liberals? Why are people so blind to themselves, even after a marathon thread like this one, where I have tried so hard to get people to get off of their MORALLY-SUPERIOR HIGH-HORSE and look at themselves.
[/end of rant/dogmatic Muslim rhetoric]

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
The strategy of the liberals that has emerged here is very clear - claim moral superiority and make the other person justify why he and his religion are so evil.
Since you can't justify your bigotry, you are reduced to a temper tantrum.

It takes a hypocrite to demand rights for oneself which are denied to others.

Until the liberals can rationally justify why they are morally superior to anybody else, then they don't have a case.
Actually, all that the "liberals" have to do is demonstrate that Islam violates human rights - this has been done. Hand-waving won't help your case.

Your point about militant factions is correct. In my case, I understand that groups like the taliban do not represent mainstream Islamic thought.

But mainstream Islamic thought does grant rights to men which are denied to women, and does reduce women to second-class status.

Again, you have offered NO JUSTIFICATION in support of this repugnant tradition.

[Timberline]

Until the liberals can rationally justify why they are morally superior to anybody else, then they don't have a case.

The justification is simple. The women I know--friends, family--do not want to be treated the way Islam treats women. They find the legal inferiority and limitations on healthy, normal everyday activities appalling. I wouldn't want to be treated that way. I suspect you wouldn't, either. There's a tradition behind this justification; it's called the Golden Rule. Even your Abrahamic tradition embraces it.

Want more justification? The degrees of segregation between men and women in Islam can only encourage misunderstanding, estrangement, and abuse. Lack of such segregation promotes understanding and friendship, and therefore healthier relationships and healthier families. (The highest divorce rate in the U.S. is among your Abrahamic cousins, the submit-to-your-husbands Baptists.)

We again await your justification for your own beliefs.


there is NOTHING in Islam that requires women to wear pup tents over themselves

So what does Islam require? You come to a thread titled "Covering up women" and then get snippy when asked to clarify your position on covering up women. If you want to expand the debate to wider, more general topics, fine. But you could at least have the courtesy to answer the original question first. It's not like a paragraph or two about the original topic would kill you. You already filled 50+ pages with your opinions on everything from pornography to the draft.

Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Muslims DO say Islam requires women to wear pup-tents or similar activity-limiting attire. Do you spend as much time scolding them for their distortion of Islam as you do scolding liberals here?

Why do they keep bringing up honor killings among a small minority of Muslims as if this is representative of Islam?

Are not honor killings an unfortunate offshoot of Islam's (and Christianity's) obsession with "modesty" and female virginity?

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
In fact, I've found lots of references to "pro-abortion feminists" -- but none to "abortion feminists" without the "pro-".

So only dk seems to know who "abortion feminists" are. The term "pro-abortion feminist" is rhetorical and you won't find any "anti-abortion feminists". Abortion Feminists build thier cause on Abortion Rights, and by doing so they become Abortion Feminists. Do...
Socialist Democrats mind being called socialists
Christian Democrates mind being called Christian
Conservative Democrats mind being called conservatives
Liberal Democrats mind being called liberals
The only people that mind being labeled by their beliefs are ashamed of themselves, or have no shame. I would include abortion feminists in the later catagory. lpetrich...are you an abortion feminist i.e. do you think abortion liberated women in the same sense that the Emancipation Proclamation liberated slaves?

[dk]

Originally posted by Gemma
dk I am having a lot of trouble tracking down the writings of " abortion feminists ". Apparently they don't identify themselves as such. Can you give me the names of three abortion feminists so that I may read what they propose myself? I recommend you visit the writings of Margaret Sanger, Alan Gutttmacher or Simone de Beauvoir.

[dk]

Originally posted by Timberline
The justification is simple. The women I know--friends, family--do not want to be treated the way Islam treats women. They find the legal inferiority and limitations on healthy, normal everyday activities appalling. I wouldn't want to be treated that way. I suspect you wouldn't, either. There's a tradition behind this justification; it's called the Golden Rule. Even your Abrahamic tradition embraces it. Here's a photo taken of the Persian Ballet from Iran in 1971...
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/MayJune03/08.jpg Dress codes in the Middle East are an immune response to the Cold War, WW II, and WW I.
You've bought into a secular, detached and revisionist historical account of Islam. Islamic people require faith, hope and charity just like everyone else, and they place no faith, hope or charity in Western Secular Culture, and that isn't Allah talking its the voice of experience. Honor killings take place by the scores every day on the streets of Washington DC, LA, NYC, Chicago, Phil, Detroit, St. Louis... and nobody cares in the US unless its a white on black, male on female, hetero on homo or some warped version of boy bites dog. Islamic Nations and people have been systematically marginalized, dehumanized and stereotyped by western secular culture, media and elite secular liberal governments. The question we need to ask is...What does Islam find so offensive about us, and the anti-Islamic crowd appears unwilling or unable to set aside their religious stereotypes to begin a good faith inquiry.

I'm not sure what your problem is with modesty and chastity, perhaps you can expound.

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by dk
Here's a photo taken of the Persian Ballet from Iran in 1971... <image snipped> Dress codes in the Middle East are an immune response to the Cold War, WW II, and WW I.

Interesting choice of examples. In 1971, Iran was ruled by Reza Shah, one of whose goals was to modernize or "westernize" Iran. Reza Shah was deposed in 1979 by an Islamic revolution. The Persian Ballet ceased to exist that same year, unable to continue in a country ruled by Islamic law:

From the Persian Ballet web site (linked below)
According to the principles of “cultural revolution” dancing was considered to be perverse, a great sin, immoral and corrupting. Consequently, the last signs of dancing disappeared in the same country that during thousands of years did great contributions to this art form and had it as a respected court ceremony.

The Persian ballet (http://www.balletspersans.org/) exists today "in exile" in Sweden, reconstituted in 2001.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Since you can't justify your bigotry, you are reduced to a temper tantrum.

Perhaps I am a bigot as you say I am. I don't see myself as a bigot, but I know that I have been blind to many things about myself in the past.

What I would like to know, in order to understand why I may be a bigot, is why liberals are morally superior to non-liberals? Calling me a bigot implies that you view yourself as being morally superior to me, a non-liberal. Shouldn't you have to offer some sort of RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your moral superiority? If you can demonstrate for me, and the rest of the world, why you are morally superior to non-liberals, then perhaps I will consider your comment about me being a bigot. Until you do that, you give me no REASON to consider your opinion.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
It takes a hypocrite to demand rights for oneself which are denied to others.

I don't demand rights. I think that you have me confused with people who think that they are ENTITLED to whatever they desire like spoiled brats.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Actually, all that the "liberals" have to do is demonstrate that Islam violates human rights - this has been done. Hand-waving won't help your case.

Your argument so far has been that Islam violates human rights because it violates human rights. Women are equal to men because women are human beings just like men are human beings. Human beings are all the same, so why should there be any differences when it comes to rights and duties? Do you hear that ladies? Get your combat boots on and don't worry about having a bad hair day or your mascara running. You are going to be too busy dodging bullets to worry about putting on makeup. For people who argue that Islam denies women's rights, assuming that is even logically possible for reasons I pointed out earlier, why does it escape them that they are DENYING women the right to not go to war?

Anyway, be that as it may, let's assume for the sake of argument that we all, as men and women, have equal human rights. On what basis do we have human rights? What are the origins of human rights? Your reply, up until now, has been that we have human rights because we have human rights, which seems to me to be a very lame argument. Until you can RATIONALLY JUSTIFY human rights, then I am afraid that you really have no basis for saying Islam denies human rights.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Your point about militant factions is correct. In my case, I understand that groups like the taliban do not represent mainstream Islamic thought.

Great.. get the word out to your liberal brothers and sisters.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
But mainstream Islamic thought does grant rights to men which are denied to women, and does reduce women to second-class status.

Well, you keep saying that, but I am waiting for you to rationally justify human rights, so until you do, I don't see any basis for you to deny or affirm any human rights. We have human rights because we have human rights isn't a very good argument. You have no basis for human rights, other than your opinion, and based on that, you assert that Islam denies human rights.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Again, you have offered NO JUSTIFICATION in support of this repugnant tradition.

Perhaps my tradition is repugnant, as you say it is, but until you can RATIONALLY JUSTIFY your moral hegemony, I see no REASON to accept what you assert.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
... but I know that I have been blind to many things about myself in the past.
Good open-minded answer. I think everyone should hold a similar thought.

What I would like to know, in order to understand why I may be a bigot, is why liberals are morally superior to non-liberals?
I don't think liberals are morally superior to non-liberals. I think we should judge people based on actions, not on beliefs, and certainly not on labels.

Calling me a bigot implies that you view yourself as being morally superior to me, a non-liberal.
I see your position as (in the worst light) advocating the enslavement of women. Yes I view that is a morally inferior position. I don't know you other than that, and I don't feel superior or inferior in any way to you as a person. I think it's possible to follow Islam and be a good neighbor, spouse, citizen.

Shouldn't you have to offer some sort of RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your moral superiority?
Come on, you know the liberal position is rationally justified. It just doesn't work for you, that's all. You just don't like the result.

If you can demonstrate for me, and the rest of the world, why you are morally superior to non-liberals, then perhaps I will consider your comment about me being a bigot.
Non-liberals is your label, not mine. I am not morally superior to non-liberals, afaik.

You are a bigot if you claim rights which you deny to women. Even if you're a liberal.

I don't demand rights. I think that you have me confused with people who think that they are ENTITLED to whatever they desire like spoiled brats.

I don't understand this, other than you associate "demanding rights" with "spoiled brats". As if the black slaves were spoiled, or the euro jews were brats.

And if a man (or woman) enslaves you, you submit your will?

And if you don't demand your rights, by what right do you complain about liberals at all?

Your argument so far has been that Islam violates human rights because it violates human rights. Women are equal to men because women are human beings just like men are human beings. Human beings are all the same, so why should there be any differences when it comes to rights and duties?
"Equal" in context here has a political meaning, and you know this. It's not true that all humans are the same, and that claim does not follow. You've constructed a strawman.

The RIGHTS are equal, not the people. Equal rights for all people.

MEANWHILE, your argument is: you like the tradition, liberals don't. And the west sucks.

<snip creative writing> ...why does it escape them that they are DENYING women the right to not go to war?
Men should have the same right. Until then we're all in the same boat. War is the problem here, not equal rights. There, I've slain your scarecrow.

On what basis do we have human rights? What are the origins of human rights?
Asked and answered. We claim them. That is where they came from.

I want to be free. Because I don't want to be oppressed. Circular, tough titties, deal with it.

Reason and empathy tell me others want to be free also. The history of the development of social morality confirms this. I find myself in a world where the concept of human rights exist, and I agree with them.

Until you can RATIONALLY JUSTIFY human rights, then I am afraid that you really have no basis for saying Islam denies human rights.

First: if you don't understand the justification offered, ask questions. Don't claim it hasn't been offered.
Secand: Human rights have been codified - they exist all right. Whether or not anyone finds them justified.
Third: If you don't accept human rights, then you have no rights, you human! How can the hypcrisy of your demand for justification escape you!

Great.. get the word out to your liberal brothers and sisters.
I've not said I'm a liberal. I operate under that banner here only after repeated objections. Just thought I'd waste my breath again.

We have human rights because we have human rights isn't a very good argument. You have no basis for human rights, other than your opinion, and based on that, you assert that Islam denies human rights.
That's not quite the argument. And the rights exist irrespective of my opinion.

That Islam denies them is a fact, documented in this thread.

Meanwhile, you have no justification for your position of advocating rights for men which are denied for women. I say this in case that claim hasn't been made yet.

[dk]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Interesting choice of examples. In 1971, Iran was ruled by Reza Shah, one of whose goals was to modernize or "westernize" Iran. Reza Shah was deposed in 1979 by an Islamic revolution. The Persian Ballet ceased to exist that same year, unable to continue in a country ruled by Islamic law The Pahlavi dynasty ruled Iran more or less(sometimes more, sometimes less) from the 1920s. Here's some background you might find interesting... One can only wonder

Almost to the very end, the conventional wisdom of Western diplomats and journalists was that the Shah would survive; after all, he had come through earlier troubles seemingly strengthened. In 1953 the Shah had actually fled the country. But he was restored to power by a CIA-inspired coup that ousted Mohammed Mossadegh, the nationalist Prime Minister who had been TIME's Man of the Year for 1951 because he had "oiled the wheels of chaos." In 1963 Iran had been swept by riots stirred up by the powerful Islamic clergy against the Shah's White Revolution. Among other things, this well-meant reform abolished the feudal landlord-peasant system. Two consequences: the reform broke up properties administered by the Shi'ite clergy and reduced their income, some of which consisted of donations from large landholders. The White Revolution also gave the vote to women. The Shah suppressed those disturbances without outside help, in part by jailing one of the instigators--an ascetic theologian named Ruhollah Khomeini, who had recently attained the title of Ayatullah and drawn crowds to fiery sermons in which he denounced the land reform as a fraud and the Shah as a traitor to Islam. (An appellation that means "sign of God." There is no formal procedure for bestowing it; a religious leader is called ayatullah by a large number of reverent followers and is accepted as such by the rest of the Iranian clergy. At present, Iran has perhaps 50 to 60 mullahs generally regarded as ayatullahs.) In 1964 Khomeini was arrested and exiled, first to Turkey, then to Iraq, where he continued to preach against the idolatrous Shah and to promulgate his vision of Iran as an "Islamic republic."
(snip)
Some observers distinguish two stages in the entire upheaval: the first a popular revolt that overthrew the Shah, then a "Khomeini coup" that concentrated all power in the clergy. The Ayatullah's main instrument was a stream of elamiehs (directives) from Qum, many issued without consulting Bazargan's nominal government. Banks and heavy industry were nationalized and turned over to government managers. Many of the elamiehs were concerned with imposing a strict Islamic way of life on all Iranians. Alcohol was forbidden. Women were segregated from men in schools below the university level, at swimming pools, beaches and other public facilities. Khomeini even banned most music from radio and TV. Marches were acceptable, he told Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci, but other Western music "dulls the mind, because it involves pleasure and ecstasy, similar to drugs." Fallaci: "Even the music of Bach, Beethoven, Verdi?" Khomeini: "I do not know those names." --- 1979: Ayatullah Khomeini ; FROM THE TIME ARCHIVE Jan. 7, 1980
(http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/1979.htm)

It may be another 50 years before we know the whole story, assuming the details of USSR/Russia and USA/CIA Cold War operatives are buried in the secret vaults. In retrospect, I don't think there's much doubt that Khomeini was responding to the the 1960s drug culture (hippie movement) that swept across US-Europe Universities. The drug induced social reconstruction that followed has been described as a Kuhnian paradigm that returned modern liberalism to hedonism. I'd say Khomeini was amazingly astute in this respect.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I don't think liberals are morally superior to non-liberals. I think we should judge people based on actions, not on beliefs, and certainly not on labels.

This is just more obfuscation. Moral beliefs are beliefs, nonetheless, and moral beliefs shape human actions. Hitler believed that the Aryan race was superior. Wasn't that a belief? Didn't his moral beliefs lead him to certain actions? To say that we should judge people's actions, and not their beliefs, creates more confusion than clarity.

As far as labels are concerned, they serve a purpose. Without labels, we cannot communicate effectively. For this reason, we call a doctor a doctor, a carpenter a carpenter, a liberal a liberal, and a Muslim a Muslim.

Liberals don't like labels because, from what I can tell, they don't like taking explicit positions. If one wants to know what a liberal is saying, he must not only listen to what he says, but he must also listen to what he doesn't say. Liberals imply more than they state explicitly. For example, a liberal may condemn Islam, Nazism, and racism as being evil - an explicit statement - but he is also IMPLYING that his moral beliefs are SUPERIOR. If I say that you are inferior to me, then I am implying that I am superior to you, even though I may not be explicitly stating such a belief.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I see your position as (in the worst light) advocating the enslavement of women. Yes I view that is a morally inferior position.

We all know your position by now - Islam is evil. I am not asking you about what you believe to be evil. I am asking you, and the rest of the liberals here, what do you believe to be good? Every time I ask you what is good, and WHY it is good, you keep chanting Islam is evil, Islam is evil, Islam is evil. I am not asking you about what you believe to be evil. I am asking you about what you believe to be good and WHY? Liberals seem to be in complete agreement about what is evil in the world, but when you ask them about what is good, and WHY, there is very little concensus among them.

Karl Marx was a big advocate of equality as justice, too. He believed that slavery was evil, as you and the rest of the liberals do, but does that mean that Communism is good because slavery, feudalism, and capitalism are evil? Experience has shown us that Communism was, and is, as evil as slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, maybe even more. The question still remains - what is good and WHY is it good? Unless you start to address that question, then you are just pissing and moaning about what you to believe to be evil in the world.

If you advocate equality as justice, then know that there have been others before you who have advocated equality as justice. Experience has shown us that their truth has been nothing but lies, their promises were false hopes, and their trust was betrayed. The track record of people who have advocated equality as justice in the past hasn't been very good, but you seem to be able to hold your nose and look the other way. Allow me the freedom to be skeptical of your claims that equality is justice. Humanity has been bitten before by this snake, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why, I ask? Equality is good because equality is good isn't going to cut the mustard with me.

[dk]

Originally posted by dk
The Pahlavi dynasty ruled Iran more or less(sometimes more, sometimes less) from the 1920s. Here's some background you might find interesting... One can only wonder
(snip)
The drug induced social reconstruction that followed has been described as a Kuhnian paradigm that returned modern liberalism to hedonism. I'd say Khomeini was amazingly astute in this respect. I agree with NC, in the greater context of history the War on Terrorism has its roots in metaphysical hedonism verses monotheism. I posted this background material to show the conflict between Islam and secular liberals runs deep. Iranian students (often educated in the US/Britain) and Islamic Mullahs in the early 1960s connected hedonism with the hippie (beat) culture, secular media bias, drugs, sexual revolution and New Left utopian ideology.

Western NATO democracies have been slow to make this connection but it drives the very same issues that fuel the Cultural War in the US today. In the greater context of history this has nothing to do with dress codes, but a metaphysical dialect that resonates with hedonistic and monotheistic themes. Its not about dress codes or women, but a war of ideas shrouded by media propaganda, schools that spoon feed political doctrine to babies with prejudice and rationalizations that excuse nothing by justifying everything under the sun.

[NonContradiction]

Muslims, for a long time now, have been put on the defense by the West. We are constantly having to explain ourselves to people who don't really care about our explanations. We are constantly having to justify our traditions to people who don't really care about our justifications. We are told that we are an inferior people and that our religion is inferior. We are told that we are a backwards people, like many of the primitive African tribes, and that we must change.

For this reason, it's not uncommon to find many Muslims who have changed their names from Muhammad to Mo, or Mike. They are ashamed to admit that they come from a Muslim background because it has been drummed into their heads that they are inferior to the West - scientifically, technologically, and morally. The West is SUPERIOR, and you, as Muslims, are INFERIOR.

For hundreds of years, the Christian Crusaders were claiming to be morally superior to the heathen Muslims, but that didn't seem to bother the Muslims because the West, clearly, wasn't superior to anybody in anything. The Muslims enjoyed their status in the world and didn't particularly pay any attention to the claims of the Christian Crusaders to moral superiority. With the advent of the scientific revolution and the tremendous technological advances that have come with it, Muslims have been made to feel that they are inferior. With the advent of liberalism in the West, the Muslims were also made to feel that they were morally inferior to the West.

As far as scientific and technological superiority is concerned, the West is, by far, superior. As far as Western liberalism being morally superior to Islam and Muslims is another issue. I simply don't see the moral superiority, and I could give many examples from history to support that claim. Muslims are willing to accept the scientific and technological superiority of the West, and they have, by the way, a very deep-founded respect for what the West has been able to achieve. What we have trouble with is the moral hegemony of the West.

The West may be able to wage war against Muslim countries, but conquering the hearts of the Muslim people has proven to be a challenge for them. Making peace is sometimes a lot harder than waging war. It's true that Islam conquered much of the known world during the 7th century by the sword, but it's what they did subsequent to their conquest that is noteworthy. They learned from the people they conquered and won the hearts of the sons and daughters of the people they conquered. I don't think that the West would be able to do that in Afghanistan or Iraq in a million years. If one wants to conquer the hearts of the people, after he has conquered their cities, then he must become humble and acknowledge that no human being, past or present, can claim moral superiority in this world. Humbleness is a virtue and arrogance is a vice, but in America, where our houses, cars, and egos are all super-sized, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. I guess that shoots down the idea of the evolution of moral superiority among the liberals.

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Muslims have been made to feel that they are inferior.

No one can make anyone "feel" anything. If some Muslims feel inferior it's probably because they see the truth in the criticisms leveled at some of their societal practices.

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by dk
It may be another 50 years before we know the whole story, assuming the details of USSR/Russia and USA/CIA Cold War operatives are buried in the secret vaults. In retrospect, I don't think there's much doubt that Khomeini was responding to the the 1960s drug culture (hippie movement) that swept across US-Europe Universities. The drug induced social reconstruction that followed has been described as a Kuhnian paradigm that returned modern liberalism to hedonism. I'd say Khomeini was amazingly astute in this respect.

You have missed the point almost entirely. It is not Islam that's the problem, but fundamentalism. Dancing existed in Islamic countries for thousands of years. Khomeini and his followers don't reject it because it's not Islamic, per se, but because it violates their narrow interpretation of Islam. It has nothing whatever to do with the "1960s drug culture" at all, as Khomeini's ignorance of some of the most well-known "classical" composers vividly displays. What in the world could Bach, Beethoven, and Ballet possibly have to do with Haight-Ashbury?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[dk]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
You have missed the point almost entirely. It is not Islam that's the problem, but fundamentalism. Dancing existed in Islamic countries for thousands of years. Khomeini and his followers don't reject it because it's not Islamic, per se, but because it violates their narrow interpretation of Islam. It has nothing whatever to do with the "1960s drug culture" at all, as Khomeini's ignorance of some of the most well-known "classical" composers vividly displays. What in the world could Bach, Beethoven, and Ballet possibly have to do with Haight-Ashbury?

Regards,

Bill Snedden I got your point, but from Khomeini's perspective the 1960s hippie movement was quintessential hedonism, and spread from the most elite Universities like a cancer into the greater society. In the 1960s there were 60,000 Iranian students on US Campuses, so to suggest Khomeini was unaware seems very unlikely. Rather, we in the US live in a fishbowl unaware the rest of the world is watching.

We've come full circle in this thread, NC started out by equating modern liberalism with hedonism. NC has a point, and history supports him. Today the US has become openly hostile to orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and most public schools and Universities in the US practice some form of yoga, transcendental meditation and/or pagan environmentalism, all adopted from hedonistic religions. You guys need to address the issue i.e. Was Khomeini correct in his assessment of modern liberalism?

If YES then
Do Islamic nations have the liberty to practice their religion?

If NO then
How do you explain the shift of NATO secular democracies away from monotheism to hedonism over the last 40 years?

It was Khomeini that called liberals frauds that hide behind democratic reforms, human rights and justice to impose a one world hedonistic government.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
This is just more obfuscation. Moral beliefs are beliefs, nonetheless, and moral beliefs shape human actions. Hitler believed that the Aryan race was superior. Wasn't that a belief? Didn't his moral beliefs lead him to certain actions? To say that we should judge people's actions, and not their beliefs, creates more confusion than clarity.
Of course thoughts can lead to actions. We can judge actions. How do you propose to judge the thoughts in a person's head? Do you really advocate thought control? Good grief.

Thoughts in and of themselves are harmless. People can think whatever they want to think and it's not my business and it's not your business.

Only actions are available for judgement.

As far as labels are concerned, they serve a purpose.
Of course. That doesn't contradict my statement. I would say that this thread serves as a primer in how over-generalization by the misapplication of labels actually hinders communication.

We all know your position by now - Islam is evil.
Not my position.

I am asking you, and the rest of the liberals here, what do you believe to be good?
First time you've asked that afaik. How come you get to ask more questions when you haven't answered mine yet?

Well, I'm asking for your justification, BUT YOU HAVEN'T ANY. That would explain it.

"Good" is relative and subjective and requires a veiwpoint in order to determine. From the pov of the human race, I'd say that "good" is that which promotes the health of society.

The question still remains - what is good and WHY is it good? Unless you start to address that question, then you are just pissing and moaning about what you to believe to be evil in the world.
Man, you have moving the goalposts down to an artform. Discussions on what "good" is can fill libraries - but you get to dominate women until they resolve the issue. That's an incredibly stupid argument.

Well, I answered anyway. There it is - a lack of objective basis for understanding good. Have at it.

If one opposes the health of society, then what does one stand for?

If you advocate equality as justice, then know that there have been others before you who have advocated equality as justice.
I don't know what "equality as justice" means. You sure make a lot of stuff up, in your quest to divert attention from this claim:

You have no justification for your advocation that men should be granted rights which are denied to women.

Equality is good because equality is good isn't going to cut the mustard with me.
Tough. Equality is bad because it interferes with your lifestyle doesn't cut it with me.

Equal rights are good because they promote the health of society.

Um, I'd better point out - to oppose the health and life of society is to advocate the sickness and death of society. "Good" and "bad" here are no great mystery, they just are not objective.

Here's some stuff you didn't respond to:

I don't understand this, other than you associate "demanding rights" with "spoiled brats". As if the black slaves were spoiled, or the euro jews were brats.
And if a man (or woman) enslaves you, you submit your will?
And if you don't demand your rights, by what right do you complain about liberals at all?

"Equal" in context here has a political meaning, and you know this. It's not true that all humans are the same, and that claim does not follow. You've constructed a strawman.
The RIGHTS are equal, not the people. Equal rights for all people.
MEANWHILE, your argument is: you like the tradition, liberals don't. And the west sucks.

Men should have the same right. Until then we're all in the same boat. War is the problem here, not equal rights. There, I've slain your scarecrow.

Asked and answered. We claim them. That is where they came from.
I want to be free. Because I don't want to be oppressed. Circular, tough titties, deal with it.
Reason and empathy tell me others want to be free also. The history of the development of social morality confirms this. I find myself in a world where the concept of human rights exist, and I agree with them.

First: if you don't understand the justification offered, ask questions. Don't claim it hasn't been offered.
Secand: Human rights have been codified - they exist all right. Whether or not anyone finds them justified.
Third: If you don't accept human rights, then you have no rights, you human! How can the hypcrisy of your demand for justification escape you!

And the rights exist irrespective of my opinion.
That Islam denies them is a fact, documented in this thread.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by ZiprHead
No one can make anyone "feel" anything.

If I hit you over the head with a hammer, then I am sure that I could make you feel something, assuming that you weren't brain dead to begin with.

[hinduwoman]

Once again NC evades the point.
The rational justification of not wearing the veil is that a woman does not want to do it. In that case what right haveyou to demand that she do so?
Justify that right first.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
Once again NC evades the point.
The rational justification of not wearing the veil is that a woman does not want to do it. In that case what right haveyou to demand that she do so?
Justify that right first.

I don't DEMAND anything from anybody. I think that you have me confused with somebody else. I am not here, as much as liberals would like me to be, to rationally justify to them why Islam isn't an evil religion.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
"Good" is relative and subjective and requires a veiwpoint in order to determine. From the pov of the human race, I'd say that "good" is that which promotes the health of society.

Well, I answered anyway. There it is - a lack of objective basis for understanding good. Have at it.

You then say the following:


Originally posted by Nowhere357
And the rights exist irrespective of my opinion.

On one hand, you say that human rights are relative and subjective and that there is no objective basis. On the other hand, you say that rights exist irrespective of your opinion. So which is it?

Second, to say that "good" is what promotes the health of society is to define nothing. You might as well be saying that good is that which promotes the good of the society. You talk in circles, yet you claim to be rational.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am not here, as much as liberals would like me to be, to rationally justify to them why Islam isn't an evil religion.
Obviously. You show no interest in rationally justifying anything at all. You seem to be some sort of hyper-troll.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
On one hand, you say that human rights are relative and subjective and that there is no objective basis. On the other hand, you say that rights exist irrespective of your opinion. So which is it?
The human rights which exist are codified - and they have been provided more than once. They are codified from our relative and subjective understanding of what human rights should be. There is no contradiction.

Second, to say that "good" is what promotes the health of society is to define nothing.
No, the definition of "nothing" is explored elsewhere (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63817).

What I provided was my definition for "good", in the context of this thread. Your failure to understand the simple definition does not indicate that the definition is irrelevant.

You might as well be saying that good is that which promotes the good of the society. You talk in circles, yet you claim to be rational.
I've got astounding philosophical news for you: all definitions are ultimately circular. Including yours, if you were to actually provide some. Try it.

Btw, if you object to my definition (MY definition, not your mischaracterization of it), then it seems you must advocate the sickness and death of society. In what way is the sickness and death of society anything other than bad for people? How can you possible justify such a view?

Oh wait, you don't bother with that "provide justification" crap. Never let lack of reason get in the way of a good prejudice, I guess. :rolleyes:

[lpetrich]

I find it baffling that dk defends the 1979 Iranian "revolution"; does opposing "hedonism" mean that one is entitled to commit whatever crime one chooses in order to get into power and stay there?

Furthermore, the Iranian "revolution" is much like the 1917 Russian "revolution":

The previous regime was a disliked monarchy: Shah, Tsar

After it fell, some earnest moderates ruled for a while: Bazargan, Kerensky

But a rather extreme ideologue returned from exile and led a coup, taking over. He then proceeded to remold society in the likeness of his ideology: Khomeini, Lenin

And a notable thing about Communists, at least according to my recollection, is that when Communists take over, they get the prostitutes off the streets. So if one dislikes prostitution, one must appreciate Communism, right?

[NonContradiction]

NC:
On one hand, you say that human rights are relative and subjective and that there is no objective basis. On the other hand, you say that rights exist irrespective of your opinion. So which is it?

Nowhere357:
The human rights which exist are codified - and they have been provided more than once. They are codified from our relative and subjective understanding of what human rights should be. There is no contradiction.

So once subjective and relative human rights become codified, then they become objective? That's nonsense.

BTW, I just wanted to say that I think that the UN didn't do a very good job of enforcing its own declaration of human rights in Bosnia or Kosovo. What good is a declaration of human rights if the UN is going to sit on its ass and watch genoicide being committed?

NC:
Second, to say that "good" is what promotes the health of society is to define nothing.

Nowhere357:
No, the definition of "nothing" is explored elsewhere (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63817).

What I provided was my definition for "good", in the context of this thread. Your failure to understand the simple definition does not indicate that the definition is irrelevant.

If I ask you what is good, and you tell me that it's what is healthy for the society, you haven't really told me anything because now I have to ask you what is healthy for society. It's as if you are saying that what is good is what is good for society. I think that you are the one who is failing to understand my simple point.

Nowhere357:
Btw, if you object to my definition (MY definition, not your mischaracterization of it), then it seems you must advocate the sickness and death of society.

Nobody has mischaracterized your definition. I have just pointed out that it's meaningless because it's too vague.

Second, it's interesting to note how you characterize me as someone who advocates the sickness and death of society. That's ironic because that is the same thing that I say about radical liberals and Christian fundamentalists.

Nowhere357:
In what way is the sickness and death of society anything other than bad for people? How can you possible justify such a view?

I don't advocate sickness and death for society, however, radical liberals and Christian fundamentalists do. Perhaps you should ask them.

Nowhere357:
Oh wait, you don't bother with that "provide justification" crap. Never let lack of reason get in the way of a good prejudice, I guess. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should take a good look at your own prejudice? You are the one who is demonizing Islam as being evil in the same way that people demonize racism and Nazism as being evil. People shouldn't have to go through life as if they are on trial. They shouldn't have to rationally justify why they are not evil, why they are not sick, why they are not inferior, etc. Radical liberals and Christian fundamentalists are a lot alike, in many ways, are they not?

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
So once subjective and relative human rights become codified, then they become objective? That's nonsense.
Maybe you're right. Let's look at your reasoning here: <scanning...scanning>

Well, no reasoning for your claim of nonsense given. I guess to nc, "nonsense" means "opposes my position so la-la-la- can't hear you - la-la-la."

I just wanted to say that I think that the UN didn't do a very good job of enforcing its own declaration of human rights in Bosnia or Kosovo. What good is a declaration of human rights if the UN is going to sit on its ass and watch genoicide being committed?

Nc claims his right to dominate women until the world government is more firmly established. (But he doesn't demand them, of course.)

If I ask you what is good, and you tell me that it's what is healthy for the society, you haven't really told me anything because now I have to ask you what is healthy for society. It's as if you are saying that what is good is what is good for society. I think that you are the one who is failing to understand my simple point.

No, the failure to understand is all yours. It really is - no doubt.

I challenge you to give up YOUR definition for "good" in the context of this thread. Dare ya.

Second, it's interesting to note how you characterize me as someone who advocates the sickness and death of society. That's ironic because that is the same thing that I say about radical liberals and Christian fundamentalists.

People can claim whatever they like. Without justification, there is no reason to take their claims seriously.

I don't advocate sickness and death for society, however, radical liberals and Christian fundamentalists do. Perhaps you should ask them.
And if they fail to justify their points, they can be disregarded.

Why do you not advocate sickness and death for society? Can it be that you understand that would be BAD? And so advocating health and life would be GOOD? Or did I move too fast for you here?

Perhaps you should take a good look at your own prejudice? You are the one who is demonizing Islam as being evil in the same way that people demonize racism and Nazism as being evil.
More evidence that your position requires you to engage in obfuscation. I've never made that claim, and I don't hold the view. And you've been told this more than once.

People shouldn't have to go through life as if they are on trial. They shouldn't have to rationally justify why they are not evil, why they are not sick, why they are not inferior, etc. Radical liberals and Christian fundamentalists are a lot alike, in many ways, are they not?
This weep-fest would be more compelling if you weren't advocating treating women as second-class citizens. The poor slave-master doesn't like it when slaves demand freedom. Boo-hoo. :boohoo:

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have been made to feel that they are inferior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ziprhead]No one can make anyone "feel" anything. If some Muslims feel inferior it's probably because they see the truth in the criticisms leveled at some of their societal practices.

If I hit you over the head with a hammer, then I am sure that I could make you feel something, assuming that you weren't brain dead to begin with.

Another in a continuing series of dodges by you of the real issue at hand. You know full well the context of the word "feel" since it was you that first stated it. Is this bit of intellectual dishonesty all you can offer in defense of your bigotry?

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
[B]I find it baffling that dk defends the 1979 Iranian "revolution"; does opposing "hedonism" mean that one is entitled to commit whatever crime one chooses in order to get into power and stay there?
(snip)
The split between NATO democracies and Islamic fundamentalists coincided with the sexual revolution, hippie movement and the drug culture that percolated from our most esteemed Universities through public education and media across Western Democracies. Today!!! We live in a world of international terrorism where WMD are available to Islamic nation, and short of incinerating 2 billion people we can’t hope to stop Islamic nations "with a will" from acquiring or using WMD.

It is essential to identify and recognize the roots of the conflict. The world Khomeini prophesized has become a reality, and that makes Khomeini an important historical figure. This is a war of ideas, and ideas have consequences. You guys need to answer the question, “What so offended Khomeini in the 1960s, and why did it so emotionally resonate with the Iranian people?”

Remember it was the Iranian students that engineered the Shah's demise, and they had been raise in an Islamic tradition but educated with Western ideas.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
The justification is simple. The women I know--friends, family--do not want to be treated the way Islam treats women. They find the legal inferiority and limitations on healthy, normal everyday activities appalling. I wouldn't want to be treated that way.


That's fine Timberline. Are there any Muslims forcing you to wear anything at all? I suppose that you will respond by saying that you empathize with all of the Muslim women that can't walk around in miniskirts and hot pants, or wear G-strings to the beach. No, that isn't what you would say either. You talk about how restrictive the clothing is for outdoor activity. So Islam is evil because it doesn't allow women to garden in a G-string?

No matter what you may say, it's a big leap to jump from "I don't want to dress the way Islam commmands Muslim women to dress" and "Islam is appalling because it commands women to cover their bodies." Because you find something appalling doesn't mean that it IS appalling. Good and evil, the last time I checked, don't revolve around your desires of what you like or dislike it.

Originally posted by Timberline
Want more justification? The degrees of segregation between men and women in Islam can only encourage misunderstanding, estrangement, and abuse.

Good luck trying to prove that Islam is abusive because it segregates men and women in prayer or other similar activities. So your argument here seems to boil down to you FEELING appalled by many things in Islam, and so I am supposed to rationally justify to you why Islam isn't a filthy, disgusting, appalling, and abusive religion because you FEEL as though it is. I don't really care how you FEEL Timberline. You are so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see past your desires, wants, and feelings.

Originally posted by Timberline
We again await your justification for your own beliefs.

Well, you are going to be waiting a long time because I am not going to keep rationally justifying Islam to people who have already ignored my justifications the first time. I have already given justification why Islam has granted the man the right to sex from his wife. I have already explained why Islam gave the man twice as much as the woman in inheritance. No matter what justification I give, it isn't going to change anything because many liberals FEEL that Islam is an APPALLING religion.

Originally posted by Timberline
Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Muslims DO say Islam requires women to wear pup-tents or similar activity-limiting attire. Do you spend as much time scolding them for their distortion of Islam as you do scolding liberals here?

Actually, I scold them worse than I do the liberals here. You have no idea. BTW, the numbers you give are no where near reality

Originally posted by Timberline
Are not honor killings an unfortunate offshoot of Islam's (and Christianity's) obsession with "modesty" and female virginity?

Are not randomn acts of destroying brand new SUV's on dealers lots unfortunate because some radical liberals have an environmentalist agenda that they want to put forward? Why are moderate liberals so obtuse about the radical liberals among themselves? Stop talking about honor killings among Muslims, as if this is something that mainstream Muslims and Islam condone, and I will stop talking about radical liberals destroying SUVs.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
So once subjective and relative human rights become codified, then they become objective? That's nonsense.

Nowhere357:
Maybe you're right. Let's look at your reasoning here: <scanning...scanning>

Well, no reasoning for your claim of nonsense given. I guess to nc, "nonsense" means "opposes my position so la-la-la- can't hear you - la-la-la."

Would you care to respond to my question? Why does the codification of subjective and relative human rights cause them to become objective?

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
That's fine Timberline. Are there any Muslims forcing you to wear anything at all? ...

Looking at the track record of militant Islamists, they would if they could.

No matter what you may say, it's a big leap to jump from "I don't want to dress the way Islam commmands Muslim women to dress" and "Islam is appalling because it commands women to cover their bodies." Because you find something appalling doesn't mean that it IS appalling. Good and evil, the last time I checked, don't revolve around your desires of what you like or dislike it.

So what do you consider the source of objective morality? Allah's commands can't be it, because it would then be meaningless to say that Allah is good. Because if Allah can meaningfully be described as good, it must be in reference to some standard of morality independent of Allah.

Good luck trying to prove that Islam is abusive because it segregates men and women in prayer or other similar activities.

Why do that? It seems like an unhealthy obsession with sex.

Well, you are going to be waiting a long time because I am not going to keep rationally justifying Islam to people who have already ignored my justifications the first time. I have already given justification why Islam has granted the man the right to sex from his wife. I have already explained why Islam gave the man twice as much as the woman in inheritance.

On which page did you give those justifications? All you've ever done is assert them, as far as I can remember.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Would you care to respond to my question? Why does the codification of subjective and relative human rights cause them to become objective?
Sigh. The objective/subjective confusion is tailor made for positions like yours. Even reasonable people argue about it.

You are mixing different meanings of the terms. And I've never said that the codification of subjective and relative human rights cause them to become objective.

The short answer is that the codification is objective - it really does exist as an object, you know. Copies have been provided.

This code is derived from our subjective and relative understanding of human rights. Human rights are not objective. The codification of them is objective.

But I've already explained this. You need to formulate your questions better if you wish better answers.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Well, you are going to be waiting a long time because I am not going to keep rationally justifying Islam to people who have already ignored my justifications the first time.

That sure seems fair; would you please consider rationally justifying Islam just one time, though?

[NonContradiction]

NonContradiction:
That's fine Timberline. Are there any Muslims forcing you to wear anything at all? ...

lpetrich:
Looking at the track record of militant Islamists, they would if they could.

And looking at the track record of militant, radical liberals, nobody would have the freedom to drive an SUV. Don't get me wrong; I am not a big fan of SUVs, but I am pointing out how radical liberals are willing to deny someone else freedom which they believe they have. In many ways, the SUV is symbolic of something much greater, much in the same way the covering of women in Islam is symbolic of something far greater.

Be that as it may, until you are willing to attack the radicals among your own group, you will always be in a compromised position when it comes to attacking the extremists of other groups, whether they are Muslims or Christians, or any other group.

NonContradiction:
No matter what you may say, it's a big leap to jump from "I don't want to dress the way Islam commmands Muslim women to dress" and "Islam is appalling because it commands women to cover their bodies." Because you find something appalling doesn't mean that it IS appalling. Good and evil, the last time I checked, don't revolve around your desires of what you like or dislike it.

lpetrich:
So what do you consider the source of objective morality? Allah's commands can't be it, because it would then be meaningless to say that Allah is good. Because if Allah can meaningfully be described as good, it must be in reference to some standard of morality independent of Allah.

You may be correct about basing morality on religious teachings, but basing morality on wants, desires, and feelings isn't an option with me. To condemn Muslims or Islam based on how people FEEL about Islam and Muslims isn't something I would even consider. If morality is based on how people feel, then on what basis do you condemn white racists for their feelings towards blacks and Jews? Why are white racists wrong for feeling as they do about blacks and Jews? If you merely appeal to your own feelings of being appalled at the feelings of white racists towards blacks and Jews, then what makes your feelings any better than their feelings? Therefore, morality MUST have a higher basis than feelings, desires, and emotions.

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that our feelings and desires originate in the primitive part of our brain, such as the desire for food, sex, etc. Also, our emotions - such as anger, for example - originate in the primitive part of our brain. It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that when we override our desires and emotions, whe tend to be more rational, which involves using the higher part of our brain. In short, any moral code that is based on primitive brain activity is hopelessly doomed to remain at a low level.

[premjan]

I think people who believe in God, especially who rely psychologically on a belief in God, are emotionally or psychologically handicapped people. We should feel sorry for them and strive to help them out.

So yes, Muslims feel inferior for a good reason. They are inferior perhaps only by circumstance, but are so nevertheless. So are Christians, Buddhists and all other religionists.

[battenj]

This seems to be a general good versus evil debate when it comes to comparing parts of the globe. I do in fact believe the author is correct when he says (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe I get the intent) that the Muslims do in fact hold the 'moral high ground' The dichotomy not be recognized here is the idea that the reason the West has been successful in the Sciences is that we allow experimentation. In the West we try to balance personal freedoms with public good. We give our citizens the right to found out life for themselves if they choose so long as they do not harm innocent bystanders. We will draw the line when it is clear and evident that the individual will irreperably harm themselves by their actions. We do not take anything for granted, and in our search for truth we experiment with moralities as well. We do eventually get it right, please bear with us and work with us to show us where the moral lines should be drawn. Check out my thesis in this forum for where I believe they should be.

With the greatest respect and love.
John

[battenj]

I apologize, I said my thesis was under this forum, it is under the philosophy forum.

[Dr Rick]

NonContradiction asserted:
You may be correct about basing morality on religious teachings, but basing morality on wants, desires, and feelings isn't an option with me.

So who's basing morality on "desires"?:

NonContradiction tries to explain the "morality" of a man's "right" to rape his wife:
For well over a thousand years, the Muslim man has always had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he desired, barring a valid reason which would prohibit her from sexual intercourse. The wife understood that it was her duty to satisfy her husband, and the reasoning behind such a right of the husband and duty of the wife seemed so obvious to everyone involved. If the wife refuses to satisfy her husband, he may look outside the marriage to satisfy his needs.

And yet NC still doesn't see the irony in his contradictory position:

...If morality is based on how people feel, then on what basis do you condemn white racists for their feelings towards blacks and Jews?

That's a question NC should try to answer for himself; it is his morality that oppresses other people because they are different, and yet the only real rationalization he can offer is "desire".

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
So who's basing morality on "desires"?:

I was responding to Timberline's post. I don't really care what she WANTS or FEELS.

Dr. Rick: NonContradiction tries to explain the "morality" of a man's "right" to rape his wife:

For well over a thousand years, the Muslim man has always had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he desired, barring a valid reason which would prohibit her from sexual intercourse. The wife understood that it was her duty to satisfy her husband, and the reasoning behind such a right of the husband and duty of the wife seemed so obvious to everyone involved. If the wife refuses to satisfy her husband, he may look outside the marriage to satisfy his needs.

Dr. Rick: And yet NC still doesn't see the irony in his contradictory position:

I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that a Muslim man having the right to have sex with his wife equates to a Muslim man having the right to rape his wife.

Second, Islam doesn't negate human desires and emotions, but it doesn't base its teachings on them either. Much of Islam teaches human beings how to control their emotions and desires, something the liberals could learn to do, for the benefit of the rest of the people in the world who have to live with them. The "If it FEELS good, do it" society that the liberals have created is a self-indulgent, egotistical, and narcissistic society. The irony is that they are claiming that a total lack of self control equates to being moral.

NC:
...If morality is based on how people feel, then on what basis do you condemn white racists for their feelings towards blacks and Jews?

Dr. Rick:
That's a question NC should try to answer for himself; it is his morality that oppresses other people because they are different, and yet the only real rationalization he can offer is "desire".

My morality isn't based on human desires and emotions so I don't know what you are talking about. The only argument that the liberals here have put on the table is that they don't WANT Islam and they FEEL appalled by it. If they think that their WANTS and FEELINGS prove something, then they are grossly mistaken.

Second, you haven't proved that Islam is oppressive other than you FEEL as though it is. You FEEL that men and women should be treated equally, but not everybody FEELS the way that you do. What makes your FEELING better than their FEELINGS? The liberals, so far, have been unable to give a good reason why their FEELINGS are better than anybody else's. Modern liberalism, in the end, is nothing more than a bunch of wants, desires, feelings, emotions, and ASSUMPTIONS by a bunch of egotistical, self-indulgent, narcissistic people.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that a Muslim man having the right to have sex with his wife equates to a Muslim man having the right to rape his wife.
Either you acknowledge the will of your wife when you wish sex, or you don't. Think it through.

The only argument that the liberals here have put on the table is that they don't WANT Islam and they FEEL appalled by it.
Actually, the argument is that Islam violates human rights. Pay attention.

YOUR argument - and your only argument afaik, is that you LIKE the tradition, and liberals do not. (And the west sucks. Page after page of how the west sucks.)

You have offered no other justification for claiming rights which you deny to others. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of your position is tangible.

[dk]

Originally posted by premjan
I think people who believe in God, especially who rely psychologically on a belief in God, are emotionally or psychologically handicapped people. We should feel sorry for them and strive to help them out.

So yes, Muslims feel inferior for a good reason. They are inferior perhaps only by circumstance, but are so nevertheless. So are Christians, Buddhists and all other religionists. In a civilization/nation where purgery, subterfuge, corruption and scandal become useful skills rationalized to achieve political goals, then God does become a psychological liability. Good point premjan.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by dk
In a civilization/nation where purgery, subterfuge, corruption and scandal become useful skills rationalized to achieve political goals, then God does become a psychological liability.A god who allegedly hates such things but does not intervene in force is not worth taking very seriously. And I mean intervening in force such things as striking people with lightning. Imagine someone struck by lightning on a clear day and you'll see what I mean.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that a Muslim man having the right to have sex with his wife equates to a Muslim man having the right to rape his wife.

I wonder what NC means by "rape".

Second, Islam doesn't negate human desires and emotions, but it doesn't base its teachings on them either. Much of Islam teaches human beings how to control their emotions and desires, something the liberals could learn to do, for the benefit of the rest of the people in the world who have to live with them. The "If it FEELS good, do it" society that the liberals have created is a self-indulgent, egotistical, and narcissistic society. The irony is that they are claiming that a total lack of self control equates to being moral.

NC can start practicing some self-control and stop projecting onto "liberals" everything he finds embarrassing about himself.

And when one thinks of the Muslim Paradise -- it's hard to compete with that in sheer hedonism.

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
A god who allegedly hates such things but does not intervene in force is not worth taking very seriously. And I mean intervening in force such things as striking people with lightning. Imagine someone struck by lightning on a clear day and you'll see what I mean. So your problem isn't with a god per say, but a god that gives people the free will to participate in their own lives. By extension your problem isn't with Islam (or Islamic dress codes), but the fact that Muslims believe they have a right to self determination.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
So your problem isn't with a god per say, but a god that gives people the free will to participate in their own lives. By extension your problem isn't with Islam (or Islamic dress codes), but the fact that Muslims believe they have a right to self determination.

Only someone blinded by sexist misogyny that doesn't consider women to be deserving of free-will could have summarized the argument this way; anyone actually following the thread would have figured-out by now that the problem is with Muslims or anyone else denying self-determination for the majority of people.

For those still without comprehension of the real issue, here's another clue:

Women are people.

[premjan]

however muslims need to themselves realize that their women are deserving of better treatment. telling them (e.g. enforcing no abaya-rules in Iraq) will simply not work. neither the men, nor the women who depend on the men quite a lot, will do it.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that a Muslim man having the right to have sex with his wife equates to a Muslim man having the right to rape his wife.

Nowhere357: Either you acknowledge the will of your wife when you wish sex, or you don't. Think it through.

You are not really answering my question. First, my wife tells me that whenever I want to have sex with her that she will be available, so there is never a problem. She understands that I, as a husband, have this right and that she, as a wife, has this duty. There is no problem, and that is the way it is in most Muslim homes.

Second, the liberals are trying to build a society that revolves around women's desires and feelings. As far as the liberals are concerned, the woman has a right to refuse sex with any man. When I point out to them that we are not talking about "any man" here, we are talking about her husband, they simply dismiss the fact that they are married. Apparently, the institution of marriage means nothing to most liberals, so whether she cohabitates with a man in wedlock, or out of wedlock, it makes no difference. How is this working in the black community where 70% of the children are born out of wedlock? Why are liberals so blind to reality? Why must they make truth a martyr in order to get what they WANT? Why must they bash Islam in order to get what they WANT? Why? For what reason?

Nowhere357:
Actually, the argument is that Islam violates human rights. Pay attention.

You are making an ASSUMPTION, based on your DESIRES and FEELINGS that human beings have certain rights. Unless you can demonstrate to the world why it's JUSTICE for a woman to be treated like a man, then you have no case; this is what you fail to understand. You have to establish what the NORM should be, first, and then you can declare that any DEVIATION from that NORM is oppressive and evil. You and the rest of the liberals here, who have been arguing with me for over 50 pages now, haven't done that. You haven't established what the NORM should be, so how can you declare that any DEVIATION is a violation? Why are you and the rest of the liberals here arguing over something so obvious?

The modern liberal NORM is based on the primitive part of the brain which controls our desires and emotions. I am proud to say that I am a DEVIANT of that NORM.

Nowhere357:
You have offered no other justification for claiming rights which you deny to others. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of your position is tangible.

Again, the burden of proof is upon you if you are going to condemn Islam or Muslims. I don't have to prove that Islam is innocent, but rather you have to prove that Islam is guilty. In order to do that, you MUST establish a NORM, then you MUST successfully argue that Islam has deviated from that NORM.

If you will recall, the modern liberals back in the 60's were considered to be the DEVIANTS from the NORM. In the 21st century, now the DEVIANTS have become the NORM, but they are still DEVIANTS to me. Good luck to you and the rest of the modern liberals here arguing with me about this point. You are going to need all of the luck you can get if you are going to convince me that your DEVIANT behavior, based on primitive desires, wants, and feelings should be the NORM.

[lpetrich]

dk:
So your problem isn't with a god per say, but a god that gives people the free will to participate in their own lives.

That's not my point -- my point is that a god who wants something ought to try to make it happen, rather than whine about how people misbehave all the time.

By extension your problem isn't with Islam (or Islamic dress codes), but the fact that Muslims believe they have a right to self determination.

I wonder what counts as "Muslim self-determination" here. Especially when one considers what the more strict Muslims are willing to do to apostates...

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The irony is that they are claiming that a total lack of self control equates to being moral...the liberals are trying to build a society that revolves around women's desires and feelings.


No one has made any such claims. 50+ pages, and the best arguments he can offer are just silly strawmen.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Btw, if you object to my definition (MY definition, not your mischaracterization of it), then it seems you must advocate the sickness and death of society. In what way is the sickness and death of society anything other than bad for people? How can you possible justify such a view?

These are loaded questions which constitute nothing more than unfair debating tactics - have you stopped beating your wife lately? You haven't established that I advocate the sickness and death of society, yet you are going to ask me, " What is your justifcation for advocating the sickness and death of society?" These are loaded questions.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove that Islam is guilty. It's not my job to prove that Islam is innocent. Why are you being so obtuse about this point? Put up or shut up. Either successfully argue that the DEVIANT behavior of modern liberals of the 60's should be the NORM that we judge all of humanity by in the 21st century or you don't have a case. It's not fair to Muslims or Islam that we have to constantly justify our innocence to our accusers while they don't have to justify their case against us. Islam is innocent of any wrongdoing, but if you THINK otherwise, then prove your case. I don't care about how you FEEL about Islam. I don't give a damn about how you, or Timberline, or any of the other liberals here FEEL about Islam. Prove your case that modern liberalism should be the NORM or stop bashing Islam as being a DEVIANT religion.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Oh wait, you don't bother with that "provide justification" crap. Never let lack of reason get in the way of a good prejudice, I guess. :rolleyes:


The burden of proof is upon you to prove your case that modern liberalism of the 60's, which is based on primitive human desires and emotions, should be the NORM that we judge all of humanity by. It's your job to prove that Islam is guilty. It's not my job to prove that it is innocent.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
First, my wife tells me that whenever I want to have sex with her that she will be available, so there is never a problem.
I've already said there is no problem with arrangements such as this - assuming free and informed consent.

She understands that I, as a husband, have this right and that she, as a wife, has this duty. There is no problem, and that is the way it is in most Muslim homes.

There IS a problem, if brainwashing, indoctrination, and the lack of informed consent play a role. I think that in this case, they do.

Second, the liberals are trying to build a society that revolves around women's desires and feelings.
Mischaracterization, of course. More like, the liberals are trying to build a society that revolves around human rights and responsibilities.

As far as the liberals are concerned, the woman has a right to refuse sex with any man.
Of course, because men have the same right. Don't you wish the right to refuse sex if you choose? How does the hypocrisy of your position escape you? Only if women are second-class citizens does your position make any sense at all.


<snip rant>

You are making an ASSUMPTION, based on your DESIRES and FEELINGS that human beings have certain rights.
Mischaracterization, again. It is a FACT that I have those desires and feeling for freedom; and it is a FACT that the history of the development of codified moral systems shows that people in general experience the same desires and feelings. Just as our science moves in the direction of greater understanding, so to does our morality move in the same direction.

Humans have rights, all right, we have given them to ourselves, and that is a FACT.

Unless you can demonstrate to the world why it's JUSTICE for a woman to be treated like a man, then you have no case; this is what you fail to understand.
Mischaracterization, again. It is justice for women to be treated as HUMANS. The failure to understand is all yours. Really.

The injustice, of course, is treating women as second-class citizens who must submit their will to the self-important almighty man.

You have to establish what the NORM should be, first, and then you can declare that any DEVIATION from that NORM is oppressive and evil.
The NORM is human rights, which stem from the individuals desire to be free from oppression. The same desire that leads to your complaints at the potential loss of your favorite tradition. The difference there is that your tradition denies to other humans the same rights you wish for yourself. Hypocrisy.

You and the rest of the liberals here, who have been arguing with me for over 50 pages now, haven't done that.
Yes we have. You simply don't want to understand - evidenced by your CONSTANT mischaracterizations.

You haven't established what the NORM should be, so how can you declare that any DEVIATION is a violation?
HUMAN RIGHTS.

The modern liberal NORM is based on the primitive part of the brain which controls our desires and emotions. I am proud to say that I am a DEVIANT of that NORM.
This is close to a good argument - you should of thought of this sooner.

Moral understanding involves base emotions, yes it does. But it analyses these feelings in the light of reason, which of course is a function of the non-primitive cortex. Empathy or compassion AND REASON lead to codified morality.

Again, the burden of proof is upon you if you are going to condemn Islam or Muslims. I don't have to prove that Islam is innocent, but rather you have to prove that Islam is guilty.
Given that the norm is human rights, Islam has been shown to be guilty of violating them.

Good luck to you and the rest of the modern liberals here arguing with me about this point.
Thank you. And good luck to you as you search for justification other than your LIKE and DESIRE for the tradition. May you soon come to realize that THERE IS NONE.

And may the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of your position became apparent. Imagine a system that demands you submit your will to another, that's the trick that engages the ability to REASON in order to escape our base emotions and see the truth of things.

The truth of things is that people resist oppression, and that you are advocating oppression.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
The irony is that they are claiming that a total lack of self control equates to being moral...the liberals are trying to build a society that revolves around women's desires and feelings.

Dr Rick
No one has made any such claims. 50+ pages, and the best arguments he can offer are just silly strawmen.

You can dismiss my arguments as silly arguments, but I think that it's obvious that I am raising some serious questions about modern liberalism which liberals are not going to be able to dodge. They are going to have to rationally justify modern liberalism as a NORM, sooner or later, and the best way anyone can attack anything is to attack its foundation. If the foundation collapses, then the whole structure collapses. If the foundation is solid, then no matter how strong of an attack anyone can mount, it will stand because its foundation is strong. Modern liberalism has an extremely weak foundation because it's based on the primitive part of the human brain that controls our desires and emotions. Western civilization has used the higher part of their brain to figure out how to go to the moon and back, but they have chosen to base their society on the lower part of the human brain which controls human desires and emotions. We are living in a very primitive, backward society which is scientifically and technologically advanced.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
These are loaded questions which constitute nothing more than unfair debating tactics - have you stopped beating your wife lately?
Yes, you're right. I retract the statement.

I was trying to get at this idea: your objections to a given definition may have more merit, if you were to provide an alternative definition.

<snip rant, except for...>

Either successfully argue that the DEVIANT behavior of modern liberals of the 60's should be the NORM that we judge all of humanity by in the 21st century or you don't have a case.
Have I stopped beating my wife yet? Why should I argue that the norm is deviant? And I have a case nonetheless.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You can dismiss my arguments as silly arguments, but I think that it's obvious that I am raising some serious questions about modern liberalism which liberals are not going to be able to dodge. They are going to have to rationally justify modern liberalism as a NORM, sooner or later, and the best way anyone can attack anything is to attack its foundation. If the foundation collapses, then the whole structure collapses. If the foundation is solid, then no matter how strong of an attack anyone can mount, it will stand because its foundation is strong. Modern liberalism has an extremely weak foundation because it's based on the primitive part of the human brain that controls our desires and emotions. Western civilization has used the higher part of their brain to figure out how to go to the moon and back, but they have chosen to base their society on the lower part of the human brain which controls human desires and emotions. We are living in a very primitive, backward society which is scientifically and technologically advanced. ohhh, that's gotta smart.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
Unless you can demonstrate to the world why it's JUSTICE for a woman to be treated like a man, then you have no case; this is what you fail to understand.

Nowhere357:
Mischaracterization, again. It is justice for women to be treated as HUMANS. The failure to understand is all yours. Really.

If you postulate that all human beings should be treated equally, then I don't see what rational justification you would have for treating criminals any differently than you do people who help little old ladies across the street. Are good people equal to evil people? Are honest people and liars equal?

More to the point of my post, it's not a mischaracterization when I ask why is it justice for a woman to be treated like a man. You are advocating, after all, that women should be treated like men if there is a draft into the armed forces. The failure to understand is all yours. Really.

P.S. This just illustrates the problem of basing morality on the primitive part of the human brain. Don't even try to make sense out of it.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
If you postulate that all human beings should be treated equally,
But I don't postulate that, and never have. Why do you keep doing this?

Equal rights for all people.

then I don't see what rational justification you would have for treating criminals any differently than you do people who help little old ladies across the street. Are good people equal to evil people? Are honest people and liars equal?
Strawmen. They all get the same rights.

More to the point of my post, it's not a mischaracterization when I ask why is it justice for a woman to be treated like a man.
But IT IS NOT MY POSITION that a woman should be treated like a man. Therefore it WAS a mischaracterization.

You are advocating, after all, that women should be treated like men if there is a draft into the armed forces.
False. Regardless of the draft, equal rights does not imply women should be treated like men. If there is a draft, that responsibility belongs to all of us.

This just illustrates the problem of basing morality on the primitive part of the human brain. Don't even try to make sense out of it.
But all you've done is create strawmen.

Also, morality is based on reason. So your illustration is wrong, and the problem you think you are illustrating is doesn't exist.

Equal rights does not mean equal treatment. Everyone has the same rights and the same responsibilities. And face the same legal consequences for their actions.

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
[B]But I don't postulate that, and never have. Why do you keep doing this?

Equal rights for all people.
(snip)

Nowhere does man have a right to carry and deliver a human life into the world, so Equal Rights by necessity are required to communicate a meaningful inequality that respects the personage of motherhood and fatherhood. This is both self evident (concept), and a biological fact (empirical). You've got to get past past the idea of egotism grounded in a gender bender, and get your mind around the concept of gender being a meaningful inequality.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
Nowhere does man have a right to carry and deliver a human life into the world,

Seeing as it is (presently) biologically impossible, how can rights enter the picture?


so Equal Rights by necessity are required to communicate a meaningful inequality that respects the personage of motherhood and fatherhood.

Well, no. Why does a aspecific division of labour of this nature have to be an "inequality"?

You've got to get past past the idea of egotism grounded in a gender bender, and get your mind around the concept of gender being a meaningful inequality.

to say the genders are biologically distinct is both self evident and rather value less. to draw from this the conclusion that they are inherently UNEQUAL is spurious. Equality is not identical with doing the same things; it is identical with having ther same rights.

[dk]

Originally posted by contracycle
Seeing as it is (presently) biologically impossible, how can rights enter the picture? Human Rights define a person legally, and therefore justice requires human rights to reflect (protect) qualities essential to human personage. Gender consists of all the factors essential to distinguish men from women. For example it is unjust for medical science to ignore breast cancer, PID, cervical cancer.... because they are primarily or exclusively female diseases. Therefore Human Rights requires a statement that communicates a meaningful inequality that broadly protects the personage of males, and females justly i.e. Equal Rights requires men and women to honor and respect one another's essential differences.

The substance of NC's grievance is that liberals don't honor or respect women, and in fact that NATO democracies export a materialistic corrupt culture that disparages women. Therefore good Islamic men have an obligation to protect Islamic women, and that women's dress codes do protect women (non-violently) from the corruptions that imbue post modern democracies.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
[B]Therefore Human Rights requires a statement that communicates a meaningful inequality that broadly protects the personage of males, and females justly i.e. Equal Rights requires men and women to honor and respect one another's essential differences.

I agree with your second sentence. That is what equal rights has always meant. What I don't understand is why you use the term "inequality" in your first sentence. Why do you see specifically appropriate behaviour as "unequal"?

[NonContradiction]

NC:
If you postulate that all human beings should be treated equally..

Nowhere357:
But I don't postulate that, and never have. Why do you keep doing this?

Equal rights for all people.

What do you mean, why do I keep doing this? How is equal rights different from treating all people equally? Either you postulate that all human beings should be treated equally or you don't. If you don't postulate that all human beings should be treated equally, then how should they be treated differently? How can you postulate equal rights for all people, yet at the same, you assert that they should not be treated equally?

As I said before folks, don't try to make sense out of morality based on the primitive part of the brain.

NC:
then I don't see what rational justification you would have for treating criminals any differently than you do people who help little old ladies across the street. Are good people equal to evil people? Are honest people and liars equal?

Nowhere357:
Strawmen. They all get the same rights.

If they all get the same rights, then it implies that they should all be treated equally. Why doesn't this point sink in? You tell me that all human beings have a right to live, yet I look around me and see the state executing people for murder. Evidently, we all don't have an equal right to live.

I suppose that you could say that you don't believe in the death penalty, but what would you do if somebody attacks you and tries to kill you? Wouldn't you try to kill him before he kills you? If so, then evidently he didn't have as much a right to live as you did. Equal rights for all human beings is nonsense because it implies that all human beings should be treated equally.

NC:
More to the point of my post, it's not a mischaracterization when I ask why is it justice for a woman to be treated like a man.

Nowhere357:
But IT IS NOT MY POSITION that a woman should be treated like a man. Therefore it WAS a mischaracterization.

If you advocate that women should be drafted into the armed forces the same way men are, then it is your position that women should be treated like men. Stop FEELING and start THINKING about what I am saying to you with the higher part of your brain.

Nowhere357:
Also, morality is based on reason.

I would like to see you prove that one. David Hume, one of the great Western empirical philosophers, said that REASON is a SLAVE of passion. When it comes to Western morality, REASON is a slave of PASSION.

Second, one of the main reasons why socialism failed, and will continue to fail, is that the economy is too big and too complex for any state to control. The free market works best because people in the free market know best about what the market place needs. They know best about what to produce and how much better than any government could ever know. Government REASONING cannot control the economy.

Similarly, the REASONING of a group of human beings cannot possibly know what moral rules ALL of humanity should adopt. We live in a global economy and the free market is not a market that doesn't have rules. The free market needs to have fair rules, which it doesn't have now BTW, but the REASONING of man is simply incapable of determining what those rules should be for all of humanity. Man's REASONING is a SLAVE of his passions, as David Hume pointed out.

In brief, people may say that morality should be based on REASON, but if REASON is a SLAVE of passion, then what it implies is that humanity is going to become a SLAVE to these people's PASSION who make the rules, but it's all done in the name of REASON. I THINK what I just said is true. Now you can tell me how you FEEL about what I just said.

Nowhere357:
Equal rights does not mean equal treatment.

I eagerly await your argument why equal rights does not imply equal treatment.

[Nowhere357]

dk
Nowhere does man have a right to carry and deliver a human life into the world,
If a man gets pregnant, he will receive the same rights as pregnant women.

so Equal Rights by necessity are required to communicate a meaningful inequality that respects the personage of motherhood and fatherhood.
No. Equal rights means the rights are equal.

This is both self evident (concept), and a biological fact (empirical).
It is also self-evident and a biological fact that people have different skin colors. By your argument, we then need different rights for each color.

You've got to get past past the idea of egotism grounded in a gender bender, and get your mind around the concept of gender being a meaningful inequality.
I don't know what "egotism grounded in a gender bender" might mean to you. I certainly have no problem with the notion that there are meaningful differences between men and women. There are meaningful differences between men, also - by your argument, we now need a new set of rights for each person.

Human Rights define a person legally, and therefore justice requires human rights to reflect (protect) qualities essential to human personage. Gender consists of all the factors essential to distinguish men from women.
Human Rights define a person legally, therefore justice requires that they apply to all humans. That differences exist between people is beside the point.

For example it is unjust for medical science to ignore breast cancer, PID, cervical cancer.... because they are primarily or exclusively female diseases.
I don't see how this supports your position. Do we need a new set of rights for people with disease?

Therefore Human Rights requires a statement that communicates a meaningful inequality that broadly protects the personage of males, and females justly i.e. Equal Rights requires men and women to honor and respect one another's essential differences.
No. Equal rights requires that the rights are equal. We are free to accomodate all the differences we like, in whatever way we like, as long as we respect human rights.

I challenge you to come up with any example at all of how equal rights must of necessity lead to injustice. For sure, the LACK of equal rights has a long history FULL of injustice.

[dk]

Originally posted by contracycle
I agree with your second sentence. That is what equal rights has always meant. What I don't understand is why you use the term "inequality" in your first sentence. Why do you see specifically appropriate behaviour as "unequal"? False, for example equal rights means men get equal time off when their wife delivers a baby. Equal rights mean women have a right to sleep their way to the top of a corporation, then sue for sexual discrimination. Equal rights mean women should act like men, and men should treat women like men. Hey, when I was a kid I ran a crane in steel mill, and two obese women labors were given the job of cleaning out some gondola cars. They got in the gondola car, but couldn't get out. So I asked my Boss, "Do equal rights mean it is safe to lift obese women out of a railroad care with a crane?” He didn't say, but I saw him laugh with his boss as a rigger hooked them up. Nobody knows what equal rights mean, and that's what they say in equality school.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by contracycle
I agree with your second sentence. That is what equal rights has always meant. What I don't understand is why you use the term "inequality" in your first sentence. Why do you see specifically appropriate behaviour as "unequal"?

I want to say something about the concept of rights. Rights are entitlements. If you work for an employer, and he has agreed to pay you for your labor, then you have a right, or an entitlement, to get paid as long as you have performed as agreed upon. The employer has a duty, and you, as the employee who has performed some work as agreed upon, have a right to get paid. There are NO rights without duties. The liberals have created dependent classes of people who FEEL that they are entitled to something for nothing. Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights - duties come BEFORE rights.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by contracycle
I agree with your second sentence. That is what equal rights has always meant. What I don't understand is why you use the term "inequality" in your first sentence. Why do you see specifically appropriate behaviour as "unequal"?

I want to say something about the concept of rights. Rights are entitlements. If you work for an employer, and he has agreed to pay you for your labor, then you have a right, or an entitlement, to get paid as long as you have performed as agreed upon. The employer has a duty, and you, as the employee who has performed some work as agreed upon, have a right to get paid. There are NO rights without duties. The liberals have created dependent classes of people who FEEL that they are entitled to something for nothing. Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights - duties come BEFORE rights.

[NonContradiction]

Sorry, double post.

[NonContradiction]

I want to say something about the concept of rights - rights are entitlements. If you work for an employer, and he has agreed to pay you for your labor, then you have a right, or an entitlement, to get paid as long as you have performed as agreed upon. The employer has a duty, and you, as the employee who has performed some work as agreed upon, have a right to get paid. There are NO rights without duties. The liberals have created dependent classes of people who FEEL that they are entitled to something for nothing. No human beings are entitled to something for nothing. Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights because duties come BEFORE rights.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
False, for example equal rights means men get equal time off when their wife delivers a baby.

I think thats a good idea and one for which there is some momentum. But lots of fatcats resist the idea.


Equal rights mean women have a right to sleep their way to the top of a corporation, then sue for sexual discrimination.

Sorry no, thats a groundless misogynist accusation.

Equal rights mean women should act like men, and men should treat women like men.

Really? Why? you just claimed, in the previous post, that appropriate treatment was just. Now you are proposing that equality means innapopriate treatment, which by your previous post woul;d be unjust? What do you mean?


Hey, when I was a kid I ran a crane in steel mill, and two obese women labors were given the job of cleaning out some gondola cars. They got in the gondola car, but couldn't get out. So I asked my Boss, "Do equal rights mean it is safe to lift obese women out of a railroad care with a crane?”

SDo you were taking the piss and phrased your joke in terms of rights. But its nonsensical from the start - what right woyuld be relvent to this act, and why would the euality of that right - if it can be idneitifed - be relevant to the case at hand?

This has nothing to do with rights, equal or otherwise.

Nobody knows what equal rights mean, and that's what they say in equality school. [/B]

Equal rights means that people are not discriminated against on a fictional basis, or an attribution born of prejudice. This is not very complicated and the only person apparently confused here is you.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
There are NO rights without duties. The liberals have created dependent classes of people who FEEL that they are entitled to something for nothing. Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights - duties come BEFORE rights.

"Rights" are a component of the social contract, and expression of the terms under which we agree to run our society. Thus, there can indeed be rights without duties, if that is what we stipulate.

The conventional and boring conservative whining about "liberals" I shall ignore.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by contracycle
"Rights" are a component of the social contract, and expression of the terms under which we agree to run our society. Thus, there can indeed be rights without duties, if that is what we stipulate.

What social contract? Who are the parties involved in this social contract? I never signed a social contract, did you? You can ASSUME that some social contract exists, but realize that you are just making it up. It's complete fantasy.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction


What social contract? Who are the parties involved in this social contract? I never signed a social contract, did you? You can ASSUME that some social contract exists, but realize that you are just making it up. It's complete fantasy. [/B]


Well thats true in a sense. A social contract is indeed an imaginary construct. Equally, there are no duties. Duties are also a verbal articulation of a set of social relationhisps. There is no necessary quid pro quo.

The language of "rights and responsibilities" is usually the preserve of those with a conservative agenda to remove rights from the allegedly "unworthy"... exactly the sort of arrogance that the enshrinement of rights in the social contract seeks to prevent or counter-act.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
What do you mean, why do I keep doing this?
I mean you keep mischaracterizing my position.

How is equal rights different from treating all people equally?
? I do not believe you are this ignorant. You are obfuscating. You already gave examples which show precisely the difference. If all people were treated equally, then we either lock up all innocent people or release all guilty people. Nonsense.

Equal rights means all people are treated equally under the law. Notice the qualifier. Without some such qualifier, the statement "treated equally" is ambiguous. Obviously. And just as obviously, it is that ambiguousness which attracts you.

How can you postulate equal rights for all people, yet at the same, you assert that they should not be treated equally?
Because "treated equally" is ambiguous. We shoot the enemy - does equal treatment mean we should shoot our friends? We take turns at stop signs - does equal treatment mean we can all go at once? We draft to protect our country. Does equal treatment mean we should draft old people?

OBVIOUSLY, equal treatment does not mean those things. But you want the phrase to mean that differences between people are ignored. Because that is disingenuous, I reject the phrase in the context of this thread. Equal rights DOES NOT mean everyone is treated in precisely and exactly the same way. It means that everyone has the same rights.

As I said before folks, don't try to make sense out of morality based on the primitive part of the brain.
And you mischaracterize again. Morality is based on reason and empathy. Reason is a higher brain function.

If they all get the same rights, then it implies that they should all be treated equally. Why doesn't this point sink in? You tell me that all human beings have a right to live, yet I look around me and see the state executing people for murder. Evidently, we all don't have an equal right to live.
Because your point is invalid. People have a right to defend themselves. The murderer had the same rights as the rest of us.

Your repeated attempt to conflate equal rights with equal treatment is fallacious. If you were to say "If they all get the same rights, then it implies that they should all be treated equally under the law" then you would be right. And then your strawmen would be seen to be irrelevant, even to you. Which is why you stick with the fallacious ambiguous version. Imo.

Equal rights for all human beings is nonsense because it implies that all human beings should be treated equally.
Still false. Equal rights imply that all people have the same rights. The "nonsense" is your conflation of equal rights with equal treatment, without qualifying what "equal treatment" may mean.

If you advocate that women should be drafted into the armed forces the same way men are, then it is your position that women should be treated like men. Stop FEELING and start THINKING about what I am saying to you with the higher part of your brain.
If it were my position that women should be treated like men, then of course women should use the men's restroom, for example. THAT IS NOT MY POSITION.

Regardless of the draft question, my position does not advocate that women should be treated like men. Put that goddamn strawman away. You sound as intelligent as a broken record.

Both women and pencil-necked geeks make poor ground-pounders. I see no reason to lower the training bar to accommodate either of them. Both women and geeks can contribute in other ways. And on the other hand, women in the military can have seperate showers and bunks without violating anyone's rights. Again my position does NOT require that women are treated like men.

I would like to see you prove that one. David Hume, one of the great Western empirical philosophers, said that REASON is a SLAVE of passion. When it comes to Western morality, REASON is a slave of PASSION.
What would you consider proof? How about the standard and philosophical difinitions? They show that morality involves judgement. Is it your claim that judgement does not involve reason?

How about neuro-biological studies showing that the cortex is activated when we make judgements or use our reasoning ability? Let me know what you consider proof.

Meanwhile Hume has his opinion. It is fallacious to claim that his "greatness" means his opinion is correct.

but the REASONING of man is simply incapable of determining what those rules should be for all of humanity. Man's REASONING is a SLAVE of his passions,
I'd like to see any sort of proof for those two assertions. Anything at all.

And what does "what those rules should be" mean? An objective source? Care to elaborate?

Now you can tell me how you FEEL about what I just said.
I feel like you need strawmen and mischaracterizations and fallacies and obfuscation in order to try and defend your unreasonable and hypocritical position that you deserve rights which are denied to other people. Thanks for asking.

I eagerly await your argument why equal rights does not imply equal treatment.
What does "equal treatment" mean to you?
_________

Imagine a system that demands you submit your will to another, that's the trick that engages the ability to REASON in order to escape our base emotions and see the truth of things.

The truth of things is that people resist oppression, and that you are advocating oppression.

So, have you performed this little experiment? What did you discover?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by contracycle
Equal rights means that people are not discriminated against on a fictional basis, or an attribution born of prejudice. This is not very complicated and the only person apparently confused here is you.

It's amazing that you talk about a fictional basis while at the same time you talk about a social contract. The social contract you speak of is pure fiction.

Equal rights implies that all human beings should be treated equally, which implies that we should treat good people the same way we treat evil people. Don't try to make sense out of it folks; it's what happens when people base their morality on the primitive part of the brain. What is important to these people is that they get what they WANT, and if the truth is martyred in the process, so be it.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Equal rights implies that all human beings should be treated equally, which implies that we should treat good people the same way we treat evil people.
You have provided nothing to support your fallacious conflation. Equal rights does not imply what you claim, and this has been REPEATEDLY explained to you.

Mods, nc is not interested in honest discourse. Why is this thread allowed to continue?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights because duties come BEFORE rights.

So is it your position that infants have no rights such as a right to life?

If human beings have "no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed," why are Islamic men entitled to some rights, such as the right to travel freely without being accompanied by another man, that Islamic women can't even earn?

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Mods, nc is not interested in honest discourse. Why is this thread allowed to continue?

As long as people want to keep discussing the topic (or something reasonably close to it) in a civil fashion, we're here to try and facilitate that discussion.

If it gets irrecoverably off topic we'll try and find an appropriate home for it in a different forum. If it generates into rancor, we'll close it (and admonish people as needed).

If you find another user's posts to be unworthy of a reply, then I'd suggest you not reply to them. If enough people have a similar reaction, the thread would probably die.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[dk]

Originally posted by contracycle
(snip)

Equal rights means that people are not discriminated against on a fictional basis, or an attribution born of prejudice. This is not very complicated and the only person apparently confused here is you. [/B] There's not a lawyer in the entire nation that can say with any certainty what sexual discrimination might or might not be. It’s a case by case, industry by industry, building by building judgment. For example...

On 9/11 there were 25 women on NYC Fire Department payroll. ?sex discrimination?
19 year old Private Jessica Lynch after being captured and rescued by a Blackhawk helicopter. She was reported to have been shot and knifed in a firefight with blood thirsty Hussein assassins, then heroically rescued from the clutches of special interrogators. Of course the story was a fairy tale some 5 year olds wouldn’t swallow without choking, nonetheless and the media lapped it up like a faithful golden retriever. ?sex discrimination?
Clinton to kept knee pads under his desk in the oval office. ?sex discrimination?
How about when Arnold played grab ass with women on movie locations to keep moral up. ?sexual discrimination?

Hard to say because I have no idea what sex discrimination might be, unless a women says, “Hey THAT’S SEX DISCRIMINATION!!! I gotta tell you, some women say Islamic dress codes are sex discrimination, and some don't, and I don't think its about dress codes at all.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You have provided nothing to support your fallacious conflation. Equal rights does not imply what you claim, and this has been REPEATEDLY explained to you.

I don't see any difference between having equal rights and treating people equally. I don't see any difference between people having unequal rights and discriminating against people. I asked you before why there is a difference, but you never answered my question. If I am conflating the two, then explain to me the difference.

The point that I am making is that I don't believe that discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. The question then becomes on what basis do we discriminate against people?

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Mods, nc is not interested in honest discourse. Why is this thread allowed to continue?

I agree with "The Other Michael". If you don't want to continue in the discussion, then that is your choice. Why should the thread be shut down simply because you don't want to continue?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
So is it your position that infants have no rights such as a right to life?

You are absolutely correct. Infants have no duties, but they most certainly have rights over their parents. I must rethink my statement.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
There's not a lawyer in the entire nation that can say with any certainty what sexual discrimination might or might not be. It’s a case by case, industry by industry, building by building judgment. For example...


Sorry but thats baloney. Your lawyers must be remarkably ignorant, if this is true.


On 9/11 there were 25 women on NYC Fire Department payroll. ?sex discrimination?

I don't know - a single number is insufficient to tell.


19 year old Private Jessica Lynch after being captured and rescued by a Blackhawk helicopter. She was reported to have been shot and knifed in a firefight with blood thirsty Hussein assassins, then heroically rescued from the clutches of special interrogators. Of course the story was a fairy tale some 5 year olds wouldn’t swallow without choking, nonetheless and the media lapped it up like a faithful golden retriever. ?sex discrimination?

Not in a meaningful sense; it could just as easily have happened to a man who was, like, high school football hero or some such. More likely sentimentality than disrimination, as no exercise of power appears rleevant to the relationship between Lynch, the media, and the military.


Clinton to kept knee pads under his desk in the oval office. ?sex discrimination?

Sexually PREDATORY, not sexually discriminatory.


How about when Arnold played grab ass with women on movie locations to keep moral up. ?sexual discrimination?[/list]

You seem to use "dsicriminiation" as if it means "bad stuff". Arnold, bein hetero, would be a biot follish to grope people INDISCRIMINATELY, wouldn't he? So no, sexually predatory and socially uncceptable, buit not actually discriminatory. although it is the objectification of women as sexual objects.


Hard to say because I have no idea what sex discrimination might be, unless a women says, “Hey THAT’S SEX DISCRIMINATION!!!

Well a little reading would solve your dilemma, although such is clearly not your strong point. If a decision is made based on someones gender, when their gender is irrelevant to the subject of the decision, that is sexually discrimnatory.


I gotta tell you, some women say Islamic dress codes are sex discrimination, and some don't, and I don't think its about dress codes at all. [/B]

Of course they are - they are clearly applied to one gender because of that genders sexual characteristics.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't see any difference between having equal rights and treating people equally. I don't see any difference between people having unequal rights and discriminating against people. I asked you before why there is a difference, but you never answered my question. If I am conflating the two, then explain to me the difference.

Discrimination is an act in which we draw distinctions between subjects of observation.
Racial or sexual discrimination is a word-form that indicates that this the distinction claimed is dubiously motivated, or non-existant, or irrelevant to the qustion at hand.

If everyone has equal rights, then they have the right to be protected from dubious, non-existant, or irrelevant distinctions imposed by others. especially ifd those alleged distinctions are used in an authority system. Failing to do so is only to endorse prejudice.

Nothing in this statement requires that people be treated identically. Only equally.


The point that I am making is that I don't believe that discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. The question then becomes on what basis do we discriminate against people?

Why discriminate AGAINST people at all?

[Timberline]

You talk about how restrictive the clothing is for outdoor activity. So Islam is evil because it doesn't allow women to garden in a G-string?

Who said anything about g-strings? I realize you’d like to steer the discussion toward examples like “gardening in a g-string,” because that would make Islam seem less extreme. But, as you well know, I’ve been talking about ordinary, practical clothing for ordinary, everyday activities.

I believe that any standard of “modesty” should not be so extreme as to make ordinary activities or jobs uncomfortable, difficult or impossible--and certainly the standard should not be discriminatory; it should not discourage or prohibit jobs and activities for one group of people but not for another. That’s perfectly reasonable and rational. Sadly, many Muslims, including apparently you, seem to have a problem with that.

I wrote: "Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Muslims DO say Islam requires women to wear pup-tents or similar activity-limiting attire." And you replied:

BTW, the numbers you give are no where near reality

The population of Saudi Arabia alone is about 20 million. Add in rural Pakistan, Sudan, northern Nigeria, the schoolgirls in France who think gym class is a sin, and Western Muslims such as the author of the web site that follows, and my estimate seems fairly accurate.
Exercise in Islam (http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_sport.htm)

Good luck trying to prove that Islam is abusive because it segregates men and women in prayer or other similar activities.

Depends on the extent of the segregation. If segregation is a pillar of a whole culture, it limits familiarity, understanding, friendships, and empathy between segregated groups. That reinforces stereotypes and prejudice. That in turn often leads to abuse. See South Africa and Mississippi, pre-1970. One of the segregated groups always draws the short straw. “Separate but equal” never really works, and you’re not even bothering to pay lip service to the “equal” part.

Either successfully argue that the DEVIANT behavior of modern liberals of the 60's should be the NORM that we judge all of humanity by in the 21st century or you don't have a case.

Believe it or not, not all the people you lump together as “liberals” are 60s hippies. Life isn’t an either-or choice between being a free-love hippie or an authoritarian Muslim.

You are so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see past your desires, wants, and feelings.

A little projection on your part, perhaps?

I have already given justification why Islam has granted the man the right to sex from his wife. I have already explained why Islam gave the man twice as much as the woman in inheritance.

I remember your justification for the former, though I find it unconvincing. I don’t recall any justification from you on the matter of inheritance. Admittedly, I could have missed it in this 50+ page quagmire. Care to repeat it?

[Arctish]

Well , I was composing an answer to dk 's post but you beat me to it, contracycle . I hope you don't mind if I add a little bit to your response.


dk:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19 year old Private Jessica Lynch after being captured and rescued by a Blackhawk helicopter. She was reported to have been shot and knifed in a firefight with blood thirsty Hussein assassins, then heroically rescued from the clutches of special interrogators. Of course the story was a fairy tale some 5 year olds wouldn’t swallow without choking, nonetheless and the media lapped it up like a faithful golden retriever. ?sex discrimination?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contracycle :

Not in a meaningful sense; it could just as easily have happened to a man who was, like, high school football hero or some such. More likely sentimentality than disrimination, as no exercise of power appears rleevant to the relationship between Lynch, the media, and the military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe this article might shed some light on the subject of Pvt. Lynch's sudden fame :
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/95/5/ogrady.asp
I remember when Scott O'Grady was rescued and it truly was as much of a media event as when Jessica Lynch was rescued.

dk
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clinton to kept knee pads under his desk in the oval office. ?sex discrimination?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contracycle:

Sexually PREDATORY, not sexually discriminatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that it was discriminatory if Clinton did not offer the same opportunity to *ahem* Hail to the Cheif to the male White House pages. It seems to have been consensual, though, so it probably was not sexual harassment.



quote:dk:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about when Arnold played grab ass with women on movie locations to keep moral up. ?sexual discrimination?[/list]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contracycle:

You seem to use "dsicriminiation" as if it means "bad stuff". Arnold, bein hetero, would be a biot follish to grope people INDISCRIMINATELY, wouldn't he? So no, sexually predatory and socially uncceptable, buit not actually discriminatory. although it is the objectification of women as sexual objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As with Clinton it's only discrimination if the guys were excluded from the activity. From what I have heard it was probably not consensual, at least not every time it happened, so there probably was sexual harassmant there. On the other hand he might have grabbed a few of the guys on the ass while "horsing around" and none of the guys took it seriously.


quote:dk:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gotta tell you, some women say Islamic dress codes are sex discrimination, and some don't, and I don't think its about dress codes at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

contracycle:

Of course they are - they are clearly applied to one gender because of that genders sexual characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well said.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
I don't see any difference between having equal rights and treating people equally.
I've explained the difference. I've pointed out the ambiguousness of the way you use the phrase. AND I've asked for your meaning of the phrase.

You ignore the explanation. You use the phrase in an ambiguous manner again. AND you don't provide your meaning of the phrase.

I don't see any difference between people having unequal rights and discriminating against people.
And without valid reasons, said discrimination is unreasonable. And you have not provided any valid reasons for unequal rights. The discrimination you advocate is unreasonable.

I asked you before why there is a difference, but you never answered my question.
Yes I did. For example I said:

"Equal rights means all people are treated equally under the law. Notice the qualifier. Without some such qualifier, the statement "treated equally" is ambiguous.

Because "treated equally" is ambiguous. We shoot the enemy - does equal treatment mean we should shoot our friends? We take turns at stop signs - does equal treatment mean we can all go at once? We draft to protect our country. Does equal treatment mean we should draft old people?

OBVIOUSLY, equal treatment does not mean those things. But you want the phrase to mean that differences between people are ignored. Because that is disingenuous, I reject the phrase in the context of this thread. Equal rights DOES NOT mean everyone is treated in precisely and exactly the same way. It means that everyone has the same rights."

If I am conflating the two, then explain to me the difference.
Equal rights means everyone has the same rights. Equal treatment in the way you use the phrase means there is no difference in the way people are treated. That is two seperate concepts. A is not B. Apples are not oranges. A description (possession of rights) is not an action (type of treatment).

People with equal rights are treated differently all the time. Only speeders have to pay speeding tickets, yet both speeders and non-speeders have the same rights.

Your claim that my position means that women are treated like men is false.

The point that I am making is that I don't believe that discrimination, in and of itself, is evil.
Of course it isn't. We discriminate between feces and food. But unreasonable discrimination is unjust. I note that you've provided NO valid reasons, despite repeated requests. The discrimination you advocate is unreasonable.

Why should the thread be shut down simply because you don't want to continue?
My opinion is that it should be shut down because you debate in a dishonest fashion. The first two paragraphs of this post provide the latest example.

[Timberline]

Second, the liberals are trying to build a society that revolves around women's desires and feelings.

Not exactly, NC. The “liberals” are trying to build a society that revolves around people's feelings. All of the people.

As far as the liberals are concerned, the woman has a right to refuse sex with any man. When I point out to them that we are not talking about "any man" here, we are talking about her husband, they simply dismiss the fact that they are married.

In a healthy relationship, sex is something shared, not taken. It occurs between two loving partners when both are "in the mood.” Sometimes people aren’t, you know. Sometimes they've just had a hard day at work, or they've already made love once that day and have had enough, or they're short on sleep, or they've just put on their business clothes and need to catch a cab to an important meeting in twenty minutes, or countless other possibilities.

Who the hell would even want to make love to a wife who wasn’t in the mood? Your insistence that you need a right to demand sex at any moment reveals a damning lack of regard for your partner.

Apparently, the institution of marriage means nothing to most liberals

Or perhaps marriage among “liberals” is about more than just sex.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Timberline
.....
Who the hell would even want to make love to a wife who wasn’t in the mood? Your insistence that you need a right to demand sex at any moment reveals a damning lack of regard for your partner.
...Or perhaps marriage among “liberals” is about more than just sex.

Not quite, though well-said; it's simply that we (both liberals and conservatives) now recognise in Western societies that women are not property.

IOW, we recognize women as human beings with the same rights as other human beings; which includes the right to refuse sex if wanted, and to be free from rape.
Even in marriage.
:D

[hinduwoman]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't DEMAND anything from anybody. I think that you have me confused with somebody else. I am not here, as much as liberals would like me to be, to rationally justify to them why Islam isn't an evil religion.

Then rationally justify why women are forced in many Islamic countires by law to cover themselves up. It is not a question of whether Islam is evil or not, it is a question of WHY do women have to cover themselves even if they don't want to?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
Then rationally justify why women are forced in many Islamic countires by law to cover themselves up. It is not a question of whether Islam is evil or not, it is a question of WHY do women have to cover themselves even if they don't want to?

Go ask them, hinduwoman, to rationally justify for you why they force women to cover themselves up. I don't speak for all Muslims, so don't ask me about what they say or do. I am not like black liberals who portray themselves as spokespeople for all black people. I am not like feminists who portray themselves as spokespeople for all women. I speak for myself, so don't ask me about what other people say or do.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
Not exactly, NC. The “liberals” are trying to build a society that revolves around people's feelings. All of the people.

What a load of crap...I don't FEEL the way liberals do, so how can you say that liberals are trying to build a society around ALL people's feelings. Not even ALL women FEEL the way you do, Timberline. It seems as though many liberals FEEL as though their FEELINGS are the only FEELINGS that matter. I know that it's hard for liberals to accept, but the truth is they don't speak for ALL people. They don't even speak for ALL Jews, ALL blacks, or ALL women.

[Nowhere357]

The desire for freedom from oppression is universal.

Those who desire oppression are free to seek it out.

Those who seek to oppress are violating the rights of others. They are in opposition to freedom, and they are hypocritical since they desire their own freedom. They are morally bankrupt since the action of oppression is immoral.

Claiming this is unreasonable is intellectually bankrupt, since no valid reasons have been given for advocating oppression.

Hypocritical, morally and intellectually bankrupt, oppressive, anti-freedom, and in violation of human rights. All good people would oppose such a stance.

[Timberline]

I don't FEEL the way liberals do, so how can you say that liberals are trying to build a society around ALL people's feelings. Not even ALL women FEEL the way you do, Timberline. It seems as though many liberals FEEL as though their FEELINGS are the only FEELINGS that matter. I know that it's hard for liberals to accept, but the truth is they don't speak for ALL people. They don't even speak for ALL Jews, ALL blacks, or ALL women.

You completely missed the point. Yes, different groups and individuals have different wants and feelings and opinions. They're never all going to agree. That's why any fair and just society requires compromise and cooperation--from you, from me, from everyone. That’s the point you continually fail to grasp. You’re the one who seems to want a society based entirely around YOUR desires, and to hell with what anyone else thinks or feels. Sorry NC, but to quote the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The desire for freedom from oppression is universal.

Those who desire oppression are free to seek it out.

Those who seek to oppress are violating the rights of others. They are in opposition to freedom, and they are hypocritical since they desire their own freedom. They are morally bankrupt since the action of oppression is immoral.

Claiming this is unreasonable is intellectually bankrupt, since no valid reasons have been given for advocating oppression.

Hypocritical, morally and intellectually bankrupt, oppressive, anti-freedom, and in violation of human rights. All good people would oppose such a stance.

Oh boy...Where do I begin here? I can only hope, for your own benefit, that some day you become a thinker instead of a feeler.

First, let's dispense with the idea that we are even talking about freedom. Anytime you have rules in a society, you have a restriction on freedom. However, who in their right mind would even think about constructing a society without any rules? So what we are talking about here really isn't about freedom at all. What we are talking about are rules - what kind of rules are we going to have, how many are we going to have, and who is going to make the rules for everybody else to follow?

The global economy would be a good example. We call it the "free market", but the fact of the matter is that it has rules. Most people feel comfortable with the fact that the free market has rules and wouldn't want it any other way because they want to ensure that their investment is safe. The question becomes, who makes the rules for the free market, what are those rules, and are those rules fair for everybody?

Second, and this is a very important point, abolishing a good rule is as bad, maybe even worse in many cases, as making a bad rule. Any rule that is enforced implies a denial of freedom, but it many instances, that is a good thing. For example, having laws against stealing is good, and anyone who would advocate abolishing such laws would be doing something evil. So it works both ways - abolishing good laws which rightfully deny people some freedom can be as bad as making laws which unlawfully deny people some freedom. One can commit oppression by abolishing a good law in the same way that one can commit oppression by making a bad law.

One example that immediately comes to my mind is the New Deal liberals abolishing the use of commodity money (gold and silver) in the US under Roosevelt's administration. The ability of the US government to print money, coupled with the fact that the US dollar is the world currency, creates distortions in the global economy that are unfair to poorer countries with weaker currencies. Commodity money was, by nature, a scarce resource, but by the miracle of the printing press, the US can create the illusion that money is in endless supply. All of this creates unfair distortions in the global market.

Second, there was a long standing traditional law against the taking of interest on loaned money. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all banned the taking of interest on loaned money, but it was the modern liberals, in the name of freedom, who abolished this good law. Now, developing third world countries struggle to even pay the interest on their loans, and when they can't, the World Bank and the IMF step in to restructure those loans, often with disastrous effects on the local economy. Governments are forced to sell their natural resources, layoff government workers, or raise taxes during recessions which further drives the local economy down.

In short, I don't believe that any human being, or group of human beings, no matter how large, no matter how intelligent, are capable of formulating rules for 6 billion people on the planet to live by. I don't believe that any human being possesses the kind of knowledge and wisdom that it would take to undertake such a task.

[lpetrich]

I don't know about traditional Judaism, but in Christendom, attitudes have varied according to economic self-interest.

For many centuries, Jews were often moneylenders, because various more respectable professions were not open to them. Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice is an unflattering stereotype of a creditor, someone who demands his "pound of flesh".

The medieval Church opposed lending at interest, because it was a big landowner, and landowners tend to be debtors.

But some of the early Protestant reformers, like John Calvin, had connections with the rising business class, and they tended to think that being a creditor was OK -- and concluded that lending at interest was OK. Eventually, the Catholic Church went along.

But this is rather off-topic.

[lpetrich]

Back to something more like our main topic.

A good analogy to various traditionists' view of sex roles is with certain deep-sea anglerfish, like Cryptopsaras couesii (http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?ID=3098&genusname=Cryptopsaras&speciesname=couesii):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/abyss/life/images/ellis274.jpeg
Males attach themselves to females who are usually much larger -- and become parasites on them.

Except that the traditionalists believe that the sex roles ought to be reversed from this, with females being little more than appendages of the males. The strict-Muslim version of this is that women should not be on display for other men to see, other men being men other than their male relatives. NonContradiction has spoken approvingly of other aspects of Islamic tradition that reinforce this inverted-deep-sea-anglerfish view, like a man's right to get sex from his wife no matter what, and having the right to seek other women if she is unwilling.

[hinduwoman]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Go ask them, hinduwoman, to rationally justify for you why they force women to cover themselves up. I don't speak for all Muslims, so don't ask me about what they say or do. I am not like black liberals who portray themselves as spokespeople for all black people. I am not like feminists who portray themselves as spokespeople for all women. I speak for myself, so don't ask me about what other people say or do.

So speaking only for youself, you have established you think women are second class citizens and wives ought to submit to marital sex on demand and women ought to cover themselves up.
Have I got your stance right?

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

I don't believe that any human being possesses the kind of knowledge and wisdom that it would take to undertake such a task.

Not even the prophet?

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Back to something more like our main topic.

A good analogy to various traditionists' view of sex roles is with certain deep-sea anglerfish, like (snip) Males attach themselves to females who are usually much larger -- and become parasites on them.

(snip) So you percieve traditionalists as parasites. Interesting, and what ought a person do when they find a parasite?

[contracycle]

dk, do you read your screen through a distort-o-matic or something? Thats among the most bizarre spins on a fairly clear statement I've ever seen.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Anytime you have rules in a society, you have a restriction on freedom. However, who in their right mind would even think about constructing a society without any rules? So what we are talking about here really isn't about freedom at all. What we are talking about are rules - what kind of rules are we going to have, how many are we going to have, and who is going to make the rules for everybody else to follow?

What's at issue is applying one set of rules to one group of people and another set of rules to another group of people.

The global economy would be a good example...

Not really; the topic is the oppression of women by Islamic-dominated societies, not the global economy.

In short, I don't believe that any human being, or group of human beings, no matter how large, no matter how intelligent, are capable of formulating rules for 6 billion people on the planet to live by. I don't believe that any human being possesses the kind of knowledge and wisdom that it would take to undertake such a task.

So there's really no rationale or justification for Islamic rules that discriminate against women. Good, that's been the point all along.

[NonContradiction]

And the beat goes on. The women liberals have complained that they were oppressed under the old patriarchal society of the 50's where the man was the breadwinner in the family. I am not here, of course, to defend the old patriarchal society of the 50's, but I am here to question where the women's liberation movement has led women. Are women more liberated today than they were before? It seems to me that they are more ENSLAVED than they ever were before.

First, as I have said before, liberals try to portray themselves as the spokespeople for ALL of the oppressed people in the world. The Jewish liberals don't speak for all Jews, the black liberals don't speak for all blacks, the women liberals don't speak for all women, and not even do the gay and lesbian liberals speak for all gays and lesbians. Tammy Bruce, the author of the New Totalitarians, is an example of a lesbian/feminist who has broken ranks with the liberals. So liberals are being less than honest when they portray themselves as spokespeople for ALL of the oppressed people in the world.

Second, it does seem to me that women are more enslaved than they ever were before. For one thing, I think that they are working harder than they ever have before, which is ironic because so many MEN have invented so many wonderful machines that have liberated women from much of the drudgery that their predecessors went through.

It was possible, years ago, for a man to be the breadwinner of the family and support his wife and children on his income alone. Now, it seems as though those days are long gone. It''s no longer an option in many families for the woman to stay at home. Now, both, the husband and wife, must work to support the mortgage payment on the house that they may die in before the loan is paid off. People used to pay cash for the homes that they purchased, then came fifteen year mortgages, and now we have 30 year mortgages as the standard. We even have 40 year mortgages now! Good grief. It seems to me that both, the husband and the wife, are now slaves to that mortgage payment. I wonder if the liberal Jewish money lenders had anything to do with this situation we find ourselves in?

The liberals had a vision for a new society and how that society should be runned. The problem is that the new liberal society is really a nightmare, but because of the political correctness of liberals, no one can say that this dream society is really a nightmare without being discriminated against. It's ironic, isn't it? Many liberals are discriminating against and denying freedom of speech to anyone who calls their liberal dream a nightmare? It's true folks. If you are a university professor, working in a liberal university, then you better watch what you say as one of my friends found out. As a Muslim, I have to be very careful what I say about Jewish liberals for obvious reasons. However, the truth needs to be told here, and the American people, I think, are smart enough to see what is going on here.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

And the beat goes on. The women liberals have complained....

The problem is that the new liberal society is really a nightmare, ......
As a Muslim, I have to be very careful what I say about Jewish liberals for obvious reasons. However, the truth needs to be told here, and the American people, I think, are smart enough to see what is going on here.

NonContradiction, you and dk have had a great effect on me.
:)
Thank-you.
I am seriously considering changing to become a gay Commie liberal Jewish woman feminist atheist.
While this will involve certain hardships on my part, I will be doing it in honour of you.
:cool:

[Dr Rick]

...Slacker!; I'm working towards becoming a Marxist/feminist/right-wing/Wahabi Jewish money lender at this very moment...

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
... It seems to me that they are more ENSLAVED than they ever were before.

Look at the drawing of a deep-sea anglerfish on the previous page. Which one is the one that gets to decide where to swim? The big one or the two little attached ones?

Tammy Bruce, the author of the New Totalitarians, is an example of a lesbian/feminist who has broken ranks with the liberals.

If she chooses to align herself with those who think that she is an enemy of The Family Unit, I'm not going to stop her. It's her head going into the noose, not mine. It's certainly possible to be a feminist gun nut -- one who thinks "BANG! No more Male Chauvinist Pig!" Or a homosexual gun nut -- one who thinks "BANG! No more homophobe!". But she fully aligns herself with the right wing, sexists and homophobes and all.

Second, it does seem to me that women are more enslaved than they ever were before. For one thing, I think that they are working harder than they ever have before, which is ironic because so many MEN have invented so many wonderful machines that have liberated women from much of the drudgery that their predecessors went through.

However, if laziness is an Evil Thing, then one ought to celebrate women working rather than wishing that married women could live like welfare mothers. And don't you right-wingers believe that work is a Noble Thing?

And a good-enough job keeps women from being at the mercy of their husbands. Consider that deep-sea-anglerfish picture again.

(expense of mortgage payments...)
I wonder if the liberal Jewish money lenders had anything to do with this situation we find ourselves in?

That's absurd -- I thought you conservatives were pro-business.

(lots of Coulterian vilification snipped for brevity)

NC, you might want to feel grateful for those you sneer at as "liberals", because they are the reason that you have not been deported or sent to an internment camp as a possible terrorist.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Dr Rick

I'm working towards becoming a Marxist/feminist/right-wing/Wahabi Jewish money lender at this very moment... Social climber.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
What's at issue is applying one set of rules to one group of people and another set of rules to another group of people.

It may be a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me and most Muslims throughout the whole world. Muhammad married more than four wives, but his followers were restricted to only four. Moreover, Muhammad's wives could not remarry after his death. Two different sets of rules were applied here. Now, do I think that I am oppressed because Muhammad could marry more than four, but my freedom is restricted to only four? No, I don't.

What you FEEL is fair, namely that there should only be one set of rules applied to everybody, regardless, doesn't necessarily mean that that is the way things should be. In Islam, some rules are applied to all human beings EQUALLY, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, white or black, male or female. However, there are other rules which are only applied to some people and not upon others. It may appear to be unfair to some people, but I don't see a problem. I THINK that if people would stop letting their FEELINGS be their guide about what is fair, and start analyzing the whole body of Islamic law, they would find, as I have, that Islam is a very fair religion.

I don't know of anything fairer than Islam, but there are many people out here who are trying to manipulate the emotions of the masses. I am very confident that the THINKERS among the human race will reach the same conclusions as I have, whereas the FEELERS will always be hopeless manipulated by people who want to stimulate the primitive part of their brains.

NC:
The global economy would be a good example...

Dr. Rick:
Not really; the topic is the oppression of women by Islamic-dominated societies, not the global economy.

They are very much related, Dr. Rick. The Jewish liberals, who were very active in the money lending business, had a vested interest in getting women out of the house into the work force so that both the husband and wife can now be slaves to a thirty year mortgage, sometimes 40. Yes, Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, whose last name was really Goldberg, was a Jewish liberal who advocated that women should be more than "just housewives." It's all interconnected, Dr. Rick.

Second, I THINK that it's obvious that the liberals are playing off of the emotions of the masses by using such words as "oppressive" or "misogynistic" when they describe Islam. The same holds true when they play the slavery card when talking to blacks. The same holds true when they play the anti-Semite card when talking to Jews. So keep trying, Dr. Rick, to manipulate the emotions of the masses by appealing to the primitive part of their brains. The THINKERS in the world are smart enough to see the game that is being played here.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am very confident that the THINKERS among the human race will reach the same conclusions as I have...

That's doubtful, NC:

The Jewish liberals...

...thinkers aren't bigots.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction's views seem a bit like those of Archie Bunker in All in the Family. Tto him, his wife Edith Bunker was a "dingbat" and his son-in-law Mike Stivic was a "meathead" -- meaning that women are dingbats and liberals are meatheads.

NonContradiction:
Now, do I think that I am oppressed because Muhammad could marry more than four, but my freedom is restricted to only four? No, I don't.

Whenever I see such self-righteousness, I suspect that there is more than meets the eye.

I THINK that if people would stop letting their FEELINGS be their guide about what is fair, and start analyzing the whole body of Islamic law, they would find, as I have, that Islam is a very fair religion.

In what way?

They are very much related, Dr. Rick. The Jewish liberals, who were very active in the money lending business, had a vested interest in getting women out of the house into the work force so that both the husband and wife can now be slaves to a thirty year mortgage, sometimes 40.

Jewish-banker conspiracy theories. One would have expected those to have gone out with Nazi Germany.

Yes, Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, whose last name was really Goldberg, was a Jewish liberal who advocated that women should be more than "just housewives." It's all interconnected, Dr. Rick.

It took a lot of digging to find it out, but her original last name was really Goldstein. But even so, what evidence is there that she is part of some alleged Jewish conspiracy? I'm reminded of how some Nazis opposed relativity because it was "Jewish physics".

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

Second, it does seem to me that women are more enslaved than they ever were before. For one thing, I think that they are working harder than they ever have before, which is ironic because so many MEN have invented so many wonderful machines that have liberated women from much of the drudgery that their predecessors went through.

It was possible, years ago, for a man to be the breadwinner of the family and support his wife and children on his income alone. Now, it seems as though those days are long gone. It''s no longer an option in many families for the woman to stay at home. Now, both, the husband and wife, must work to support the mortgage payment on the house that they may die in before the loan is paid off. People used to pay cash for the homes that they purchased, then came fifteen year mortgages, and now we have 30 year mortgages as the standard. We even have 40 year mortgages now! Good grief. It seems to me that both, the husband and the wife, are now slaves to that mortgage payment.

And what the hell has women's liberation had to do with modern enslavement to the almighty dollar?

That's merely a product of people overextending themselves in order to keep up with the Jones' in true Amurican materialist fashion.

You're not a good American if you don't spend at a rate relative to your income that has you in hock up to your eyeballs. Got to keep the corporate wheels greased.

Again, how has allowing women to vote and enter the workplace directly caused these ills?

Women could still stay home if they wished. They'd just not be able to afford some modern things, they could go back to living like my grandmother did and people would pity them for being poor. Apparently, for whatever reason, couples prefer two income households, even if it means more stress and even if they still manage to spend every penny.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
[B]
I THINK that if people would stop letting their FEELINGS be their guide about what is fair, and start analyzing the whole body of Islamic law, they would find, as I have, that Islam is a very fair religion.

Yeah, fair as long as you know your place and just accept where the crap shoot of birth has stuck you, be it a body with or without a penis or black or white skin.

They are very much related, Dr. Rick. The Jewish liberals, who were very active in the money lending business, had a vested interest in getting women out of the house into the work force so that both the husband and wife can now be slaves to a thirty year mortgage, sometimes 40. Yes, Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, whose last name was really Goldberg, was a Jewish liberal who advocated that women should be more than "just housewives." It's all interconnected, Dr. Rick.

That's the connection between womens liberation and Amurica's enslavement to capitalism? A Jewish Conspiracy? Wow. I've heard everything now.

Second, I THINK that it's obvious that the liberals are playing off of the emotions of the masses by using such words as "oppressive" or "misogynistic" when they describe Islam. The same holds true when they play the slavery card when talking to blacks.

So slavery was fair and just? Women being kept in their place is a okay whether it's what they want or not?

Man, it's people like you that probably support the current Saudi education system and its teaching of primarily theology; thus leaving its own men so damned ignorant that they have to import scientists and engineers to run the oil and construction industries. Meanwhile those bone idle ignorant folk blame western influence for their shitty station in life, come to resent the liberal muslims that are running the show and holding the wealth and decide to start blowing shit up because of it.


The same holds true when they play the anti-Semite card when talking to Jews.

This doesn't necessarily follow. It's the liberals I've heard lately being accused of anti-semitism for criticizing the Isrealis. The Conservatives in the US are currently all too eager kiss Arial Sharon's butt.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all banned the taking of interest on loaned money, but it was the modern liberals, in the name of freedom, who abolished this good law.

Hardy har har. Find me a Christian or Jew anywhere that wouldn't support taking interest on a loan? Our economic wheels depend on loaned money. How better to entice a corporation to grant loans than to have them paid for the service of granting a loan. No doubt our debt ridden, over extended, over consumptive society is out of hand but it isn't the liberals fault. Ask GW, it's all about the corporate America.

As far as the liberals are concerned, the woman has a right to refuse sex with any man. When I point out to them that we are not talking about "any man" here, we are talking about her husband, they simply dismiss the fact that they are married.

You're joking right. You wouldn't actually want to have sex with a woman that doesn't reciprocate?

I've had sex with a willing but hesitant partner and it sucked. I can't imagine having sex with a women that doesn't want it. I guess you don't care about the sex being any good or care how your wife feels, you just want to dominate her.

Wow, I haven't run across someone scrambling so hard to rationalize a totally superstitious backwards world view in quite some time.

Life wasn't better when women were just home bound baby factories, at least not for most of the people that I know.

My poor grandmother lived that life and when my grandfather died she couldn't even balance a check book. If she hadn't come from money she'd have probably been illiterate. Yeah, life was good back then. Those were the days.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If you postulate that all human beings should be treated equally, then I don't see what rational justification you would have for treating criminals any differently than you do people who help little old ladies across the street. Are good people equal to evil people? Are honest people and liars equal?



Um, have women committed, by being women, some offense that infringed on the rights of another?

A liar's lie may cause me harm. I have justification to treat him differently than the honest man.

What exactly is it about a woman that justifies her being treated differently?

I can demonstrate how criminals and liars can harm me and thus should be treated differently. What's your justification for treating women differently?

Just their anatomy?
You don't want to compete with them in the workplace?

Do You have some primal urge to dominate your woman or keep as many mates as possible? ( It makes good evolutionary sense to keep as many women as possible and sire as many children as possible with as many women as possible. Keeping tight dominant tabs on your women makes sure that you control the reproductive environment. It's the way Chimpanzee groups function. That primitive part of the brain firing in you too like us neanderthol libs? )

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I want to say something about the concept of rights - rights are entitlements. If you work for an employer, and he has agreed to pay you for your labor, then you have a right, or an entitlement, to get paid as long as you have performed as agreed upon. The employer has a duty, and you, as the employee who has performed some work as agreed upon, have a right to get paid. There are NO rights without duties. The liberals have created dependent classes of people who FEEL that they are entitled to something for nothing. No human beings are entitled to something for nothing. Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights because duties come BEFORE rights.

So what did you do to earn the birth right to dominate women whether they like it or not? Sounds like you're claiming an un-earned entitlement.

Why shan't women have the freedom to choose the nature of the marital relationship that they will enter. They may choose to enter a relationship where they'll be an illiterate baby factory. They may also choose to enter a relationship where income earning shall be shared. Look at it like a contractual relationship. What entitles you to set all the terms and them none?

I agree that the sense of entitlement and lack of personnal responsibility is out of hand in this country but that has nothing to do with your advocacy of denying basic freedoms to group of humans because of their gender.

[Arctish]

NC says:

Second, it does seem to me that women are more enslaved than they ever were before. For one thing, I think that they are working harder than they ever have before, which is ironic because so many MEN have invented so many wonderful machines that have liberated women from much of the drudgery that their predecessors went through.

It was possible, years ago, for a man to be the breadwinner of the family and support his wife and children on his income alone. Now, it seems as though those days are long gone.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you truly believe this NC you really need to have a long talk with your elders about the hardships they endured in the early part of the last century and before. I do not know of a single person older than 60 who would say that women's lives are harder now.
When my grandmother was widowed with two young children in the 1930's she went to work in a factory to support her family. She was paid less than one third of what the men were paid for doing the same job.This was a very common practice. A man could support a family on his pay but a woman could not on her pay. The result was abject poverty for widows and their children. Why? Because she was a woman of course, no other explanation needed (as if that makes sense ).
Back in the 1970's some of those crazy liberals decided this was unjust and convinced enough people to go along with them in making equal pay for equal work a standard in employment. Is it your argument that this has caused an increase in the enslavement of women? My grandmother saw it as a blessing, in that should her daughter or granddaughters ever be widowed like she was they could at least afford to put food on the table.
I really do think you need to talk to the people who lived in the days before the Women's Liberation Movement and ask them what life was like then. You seem to see it in a sentimental haze and not at all as it really was for most people.
Now, getting back to the topic of covering up women I would like to ask a question that has been asked many times in many ways. Why should these restrictions on choice of clothing, freedom to travel, freedom to socialize,etc. apply only to women? If they are meant to reduce immorality in society then why not cover up the men, too?

[dk]

Originally posted by Gurdur
NonContradiction, you and dk have had a great effect on me.
:)
Thank-you.
I am seriously considering changing to become a gay Commie liberal Jewish woman feminist atheist.
While this will involve certain hardships on my part, I will be doing it in honour of you.
:cool:

NOT to be argumentive, but If you were really sincere then you would become a
multi-racial gay Commie Jew feminist bi-sexual woman trapped in a man's body.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
...thinkers aren't bigots.

The bigot label is the main weapon in the arsenal of the liberals, and quite often, they use it effectively against conservatives. Unfortunately, for them, it doesn't apply to me, but that isn't going to stop them from using it to disparage me.

The last time I checked, it wasn't bigotry to be against liberals. It is bigotry to be against Jews, blacks, and women, but I don't think that it's bigotry to be against Jewish liberals, black liberals, women liberals, or any other kind of liberals you can think of. I am even against the Muslim liberals. Does that make me a bigot against myself?

Liberals are not the spokespeople for all Jews, all blacks, and all women, and they are being less than honest when they portray themselves as such. However, I have yet to meet a liberal who ever let the truth get in the way of what he/she DESIRED. I am sure that they are out here, somewhere, but I haven't met one yet.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
The bigot label is the main weapon in the arsenal of the liberals, and quite often, they use it effectively against conservatives. Unfortunately, for them, it doesn't apply to me, but that isn't going to stop them from using it to disparage me.

If you're going to blame our troubles on "liberal Jewish bankers", you are going to get called a bigot.

That's the sort of thing the Nazis had done; they'd claimed that Jews were the cause of much of the trouble in the world, and were irredeemably evil enemies of civilization. And yes, they believed that loansharking-Jewish-banker stereotype.

I have yet to meet a liberal who ever let the truth get in the way of what he/she DESIRED.

A very Coulterian view; I wonder why NC has so much trouble seeing beyond that.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Liberals are not the spokespeople for all Jews, all blacks, and all women, and they are being less than honest when they portray themselves as such.

http://www.markfiend.com/images/ironymeter.gif

No "liberal" is claiming to be "spokespeople" for anyone; that's just another in a very long string of strawmen. It's been made abundantly clear over and over that those of us that argue for freedom believe that each Jew, each Black, each woman, each person can speak for his/herself, and if some or even all of them want to wear burqas and/or subserve Muslim male sexual desires, they can. One of the many ironies here, and the one NC apparently does not yet grasp, is that his arguments for imposing his desires and beliefs upon others no matter how unwilling they may be implicitly assumes that he can and must speak for them, as well.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
There are NO rights without duties...No human beings are entitled to something for nothing. Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights because duties come BEFORE rights.

Goodness. A definition of human rights based on some sort of barter system?

As far as I'm aware, babies don't do any work or have any duties, but they sure are entitled to full human rights nonetheless.

;)

[Theli]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Goodness. A definition of human rights based on some sort of barter system?

As far as I'm aware, babies don't do any work or have any duties, but they sure are entitled to full human rights nonetheless.

;)
Babies won't remain babies forever, will they?
As they are humans they are expected to "serve" society one way or the other once they've reached a certain age.
So, barter system is abit inaccurate. If you take you must also give, or there'll be no society.

[dk]

Originally posted by Theli
Babies won't remain babies forever, will they?
As they are humans they are expected to "serve" society one way or the other once they've reached a certain age.
So, barter system is abit inaccurate. If you take you must also give, or there'll be no society. What an amazing twist. NC (a conservative) argues that human rights recognize a common duty (obligation), not an entitlement. Inexpicably liberals retort that all humans have a right to life, liberty, property... contingent only upon a self evident entitlement that bind's everyone with common cause. I don't see a necessary conflict between the two statements, but a necessary complement clarified by "Human Rights force me to recognize my duty to respect the life, liberty, property...(human rights) of others with due process.

Is it possible that liberals and conservatives might agree upon such a fundamental tenant, or dare I say.."forced to agree"?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

Goodness. A definition of human rights based on some sort of barter system?

As far as I'm aware, babies don't do any work or have any duties, but they sure are entitled to full human rights nonetheless.
______

Originally posted by Theli

Babies won't remain babies forever, will they?
As they are humans they are expected to "serve" society one way or the other once they've reached a certain age.
So, barter system is abit inaccurate. If you take you must also give, or there'll be no society.
Wrong in argument, Theli.
There are quite a few babies who will not survive infanthood (owing to severe defects); despite that, we choose to recognize them as human, and extend to them the same basic human rights we choose to form and implement.

The issue of duties is a completely seperate issue. Many people choose to recognize certain human rights completely seperate of duties; while often some extra "rights" are dependent upon fulfillment of duties, those "rights" are then more precisely earnt entitlements.
Luiseach was completely correct in her implied argument; the only time many people will not recognize some as having given and extended intrinsic rights by simple virtue of being human is when those some significantly act against the rights of others --- as in the case of criminals ---- or act pathologically against themselves, as in the case of psychotic suicide attempts or self-mutilation.
The issue of what keeps a society together and going is quite a seperate issue of what the majority consider to be reasonable, granted basic human rights.

[dk]

Originally posted by Gurdur (snip)
The issue of what keeps a society together and going is quite a seperate issue of what the majority consider to be reasonable, granted basic human rights.

You need to clarify "The issue of
"(what about {life, liberty, freedom, hapiness...})
keeps society together and going...".

note: It seems obvious, to me, that the issue of "human rights" often tear a society apart. For example, the institution of slavery wrongfully elevates my property rights above a slave's right to liberty; and it is wrong to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because my "free speech" rights are constrained by public safety.

[Theli]

There are quite a few babies who will not survive infanthood (owing to severe defects); despite that, we choose to recognize them as human, and extend to them the same basic human rights we choose to form and implement.
Yes, I know. We do this by instinct and we rarelly do any distinction between different instances when it comes to morality. We tend to judge all instances (in this case: all babies) by the same rule.
And I think there's a reason for this, most of the time we are incapable of forseeing a childs capacity to live and function in a society so a general rule based on empathy for all human children is applied.
Even though caring for a child that will soon die out of a practical viewpoint is fruitless.
...we choose to recognize them as human, and extend to them the same basic human rights we choose to form and implement.
Ofcourse we recognize them as humans, they are humans, but if they were indifferent to our wellbeing why should we care about theirs? Why should we give them rights?
Many people choose to recognize certain human rights completely seperate of duties; while often some extra "rights" are dependent upon fulfillment of duties, those "rights" are then more precisely earnt entitlements.
If by right you mean right from inaction, that is... I won't kill or hurt that certain person even though I do not care for him, then yes those 'rights' can be given freely as they require no effort on my part.
But I have no obligation to grant any rights that require a sacrifice or an effort on my part to a person that will not return the favour.

For instance, as I've been granted an education on society's expense I am also expected to use that knowledge to serve society by working, in order to pay back what I "borrowed".

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't help someone who cannot return the favour, but there's no obligation.

[MollyMac]

Originally posted by dk
NOT to be argumentive, but If you were really sincere then you would become a
multi-racial gay Commie Jew feminist bi-sexual woman trapped in a man's body. http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/516.gif
dk, I bet you don't get too many of these but here's one at least::notworthy

[NonContradiction]

NC: The bigot label is the main weapon in the arsenal of the liberals, and quite often, they use it effectively against conservatives. Unfortunately, for them, it doesn't apply to me, but that isn't going to stop them from using it to disparage me.

lpetrich:
If you're going to blame our troubles on "liberal Jewish bankers", you are going to get called a bigot.

That's the sort of thing the Nazis had done; they'd claimed that Jews were the cause of much of the trouble in the world, and were irredeemably evil enemies of civilization. And yes, they believed that loansharking-Jewish-banker stereotype.

You would be correct if that is what I was doing, but I am not. I am not blaming all of the problems on the "liberal Jewish bankers." I don't even think that all of the problems we are facing in the world today are because of the liberals, as Ann Coulter might say. I believe that the liberals, in general, and the Jewish liberals, in particular, are opportunists. Yes, there were some injustices committed in the past, but the liberals, particularly the Jewish liberals, have been taking advantage of the situation and using other minority communities to their advantage. For this reason, we see tension between black liberals and Jewish liberals, whereas back in the 60's Jewish liberals were the biggest supporters of black civil rights.

I say "Jewish liberals", in particular, because the leadership of the liberal minority communities, for the most part, has originated from among them since they tend to be the most educated and the most wealthy of all of the minority communities in America. The fact that many Jewish liberals became neo-conservatives under Ronald Reagan's administration illustrates very boldly that they are opportunists. Their conversion to conservatism was, I think, done out of pure self-interest. As a result, we find Christian liberals opposing Zionism, whereas the neo-conservatives, formerly Jewish liberals, are now the biggest supporters of Zionism. Zionism was, and still is, as far as I am concerned, a purely secular, Jewish, liberal movement. Politics, as you well know, is a dirty game, and the Jewish liberals know how to play the game better than anybody I know. They will play both sides of the fence out of self-interest.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick


http://www.markfiend.com/images/ironymeter.gif

No "liberal" is claiming to be "spokespeople" for anyone; that's just another in a very long string of strawmen.

Of course, most liberals would never make the claim that they speak for everybody. I am commenting on the way I THINK that most of them behave. They portray themselves as spokespeople for the oppressed people of the world.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Theli

Yes, I know. We do this by instinct
No.
Much of our morality is the result of cognition, not of instinct.
and we rarelly do any distinction between different instances when it comes to morality. We tend to judge all instances (in this case: all babies) by the same rule.
Only when we choose to do so.
.....
Even though caring for a child that will soon die out of a practical viewpoint is fruitless.
Most people choose not to have such naïve utilitarian ethics; they choose other ethics.
why should we care about theirs? Why should we give them rights?
Why shouldn't we ?
Most people choose to care at least in such circumstances about such dying children; they do not think in terms of reciprocality in such circumstances.
....But I have no obligation to grant any rights that require a sacrifice or an effort on my part to a person that will not return the favour. ....
That is your choice. Others choose differently.

[NonContradiction]

Gurdur: No.
Much of our morality is the result of cognition, not of instinct.

Secular morality isn't based on reason. Secular morality is based on the DESIRES, WHIMS (in many cases), and EMOTIONS of SOME people, not ALL people. David Hume was right when he said that REASON is a slave of PASSION in regards to morality. Morality based on reason is one of the biggest myths of the modern world.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

Secular morality isn't based on reason.
That is only your opinion.
Secular morality is based on the DESIRES, WHIMS (in many cases), and EMOTIONS of SOME people, not ALL people.
Ah, so if true it would be just like conservative Islamic morality in that regard, yes ? :D
Since we both know that much of what is called "conservative Islamic morality" does not come from the Koran, itself a product of many whims, but from cultural and other whims.
David Hume was right when he said that REASON is a slave of PASSION in regards to morality. Morality based on reason is one of the biggest myths of the modern world. Naaaaaw, walk into any large teaching hospital, and there you will often find a salaried ethicist advising the medical staff on ethical procedures.
No whims there.
:)

You will also find a huge body of thought going into the creation and enforcement of laws --- reason, not whims.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
Secular morality isn't based on reason.

Gurdur:
That is only your opinion.

No, it's a fact, not an opinion. The desires of secularists form the basis of moral secular principles. From those principles, a moral code and laws are derived which govern society. Yes, reason does play a role, and David Hume would not deny that, but the foundations of secular morality are the DESIRES of the secularists for society. It's all based on what they FEEL is good or evil for the society.


NC:
Secular morality is based on the DESIRES, WHIMS (in many cases), and EMOTIONS of SOME people, not ALL people.

Gurdur:
Ah, so if true it would be just like conservative Islamic morality in that regard, yes ? :D
Since we both know that much of what is called "conservative Islamic morality" does not come from the Koran, itself a product of many whims, but from cultural and other whims.


First, as I have said before, I am to the right of the Muslim liberals, whom you are familiar with, but I am also to the left of the Taliban and the Wahhabis.

Second, at the present moment, we are talking about your assertion that morality is a result of cognition. I am challenging that assertion because I believe it to be false. Whether Islam is, or is not, based on the desires of grey-bearded mullahs is another question.

NC:
David Hume was right when he said that REASON is a slave of PASSION in regards to morality. Morality based on reason is one of the biggest myths of the modern world.

Gurdur:
Naaaaaw, walk into any large teaching hospital, and there you will often find a salaried ethicist advising the medical staff on ethical procedures.
No whims there.
:)

What does walking into any large teaching hospital and finding salaried ethicists dispensing advice prove? It proves nothing. I can't believe that you would even attempt such a weak argument to prove your point.

Gurdur:
You will also find a huge body of thought going into the creation and enforcement of laws --- reason, not whims.

See above.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

No, it's a fact, not an opinion.
No, it's an opinion which ignores the facts. Tsk !
See below.
...... Yes, reason does play a role,
D'oh. You grant my point.

but the foundations of secular morality are the DESIRES of the secularists for society. It's all based on what they FEEL is good or evil for the society.
Ah, so you're backing off that it's all pure individual selfish whims, are you ?
So you admit that liberals want what's best for scoiety ?
Good !
:)
We make progress.
...but I am also to the left of the Taliban and the Wahhabis.
Hardly a difficult trick to pull off. Genghis Khan could have managed that.
Second, at the present moment, we are talking about your assertion that morality is a result of cognition.
No, that's your strawman !
Let's take a look at what I actually wrote:
Originally posted by Gurdur

Much of our morality is the result of cognition, not of instinct.So until you can actually address what I actually said, you're flailing around, yes ?
Originally posted by NonContradiction Whether Islam is, or is not, based on the desires of grey-bearded mullahs is another question.
So let's address it.
:D
What does walking into any large teaching hospital and finding salaried ethicists dispensing advice prove?
D'oh, it proves through a practical example that much of our morality is the result of cognition, not of instinct.
I can't believe you'ld try such a weak comeback.

[Theli]

No.
Much of our morality is the result of cognition, not of instinct.
Allow me to doubt. Most morality, and moral claims I have encountered has been based on emotions rather than reason weither it is empathy or good ol' tribal mentality.
About granting a "doomed" child the same rights as one that has a future there is no reason besides our common sympathy for a human life for doing so.
Theli:
and we rarelly do any distinction between different instances when it comes to morality. We tend to judge all instances (in this case: all babies) by the same rule.

Gurdur:
Only when we choose to do so.
Excuse me?
Ok, allow me to then rephraze my claim: We tend to choose to judge all instances by the same rule. It will not always bring the right result, but it is much easier.
Most people choose not to have such naïve utilitarian ethics; they choose other ethics.
No need to get mad, I mean no harm. And I would like to add that choice is not like a magic wand that can conjour up decisions out of thin air, there's a cause and a reason behind every choice. Your reply here didn't really add anything to the discussion.
Why shouldn't we ?
Most people choose to care at least in such circumstances about such dying children.
Yes, and alot of people choose to gamble away all their money for a cheap thrill but that doesn't make it a good choice.
However, as this is not a poll, the number of people choosing a certain course of action or moral conviction is irrelavent. No rationale has been given to explain this choice, except for the fact that we tend to act on preconcieved notions, and thus judging every instance of a situation the same.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Secular morality isn't based on reason. Secular morality is based on the DESIRES, WHIMS (in many cases), and EMOTIONS of SOME people, not ALL people.

That doesn't even remotely make sense.

There is no distinct "secular morality" any more than there is a distinct "theistic morality." Different secularists, like different theists, may and do have different morals.

Besides, who here has advocated basing morality on "WHIMS" when it is you that has argued for the right of Muslim men to have sex with their wives whenever they "desire?" That certainly isn't based on the "emotions" of "all people," especially women.

No one here is advocationg morality based on the desires of some except you.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
David Hume was right when he said that REASON is a slave of PASSION in regards to morality. Morality based on reason is one of the biggest myths of the modern world.

Morality based solely on reason doesn't exist, no. Morality based on emotion tempered by reason exists and is far superior to morality based on dogmatic myths.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Theli

Allow me to doubt. Be my guest. I always recommend skepticism.
Most morality, and moral claims I have encountered has been based on emotions rather than reason weither it is empathy or good ol' tribal mentality.
Really ? I doubt your claim.
You have encountered the politico-legal system of Swedfen --- the result of implemented morality.
The death penalty no longer exists, no ?
Because of people thinking about it. Or how about the entire welfare system ?
If you want to try convincing me this is mostly instinct, I'm going to ask you where a fully-fledged social security system lies in waiting in the DNA.
About granting a "doomed" child the same rights as one that has a future there is no reason besides our common sympathy for a human life for doing so.
Your opinion again --- others have different opinions.
In any case, so what ? "Common sympathy" is not an automatic reaction --- it's heavily controlled by cognition.
You're trying to make the case for instinct being paramount.
You're going to have major difficulties in explaining the wide range of human cultural histories and moralities.
Ok, allow me to then rephraze my claim: We tend to choose to judge all instances by the same rule. It will not always bring the right result, but it is much easier.
Rather non-controversial a claim ---- I'll let that one alone.
No need to get mad,
Eh ? I assure you, next to me a cucumber would look like Charles Manson.
:)
I mean no harm.
My quota for quibbles is full today, so I'll let that one go too.
And I would like to add that choice is not like a magic wand that can conjour up decisions out of thin air, there's a cause and a reason behind every choice. Your reply here didn't really add anything to the discussion. Come off it.
Let's look at the claim you just made:

Now you're arguing for some version of psychological determinism with regard to choice in morality.
You're going to have major difficulties in explaining the wide range of human cultural histories and moralities.
:D
......, the number of people choosing a certain course of action or moral conviction is irrelavent. ... Completely irrelevant and beside the point.
I've made it clear that morality is not heavily instinctual in humans, that instead cognition plays a very large role in altering and forming morality.
The very large differences in the wide range of human cultural histories and moralities is a classic and obvious example of that.
You haven't dealt with that.

Moreover, psychological determinism is most likely an unfalsifiable theory, and therefore not a scientific theory in the end, and explains nothing.
The power of choice in human morality is the easiest explanation in explaining just what we observe over time in human societies and individuals.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
David Hume was right when he said that REASON is a slave of PASSION in regards to morality. Morality based on reason is one of the biggest myths of the modern world.

Originally posted by scombrid



Morality based solely on reason doesn't exist, no. Morality based on emotion tempered by reason exists and is far superior to morality based on dogmatic myths. [/B]

For NC and scombrid...

David Hume was right only if we assume the law of the jungle negates free will (law of the jungle = natural law), to subscribe humanity to a brand of totalitarian determinism. Its a laugher, if reason were the slave of passion (with respect to morality) then a psychopath completely consumed by unrestrained passion personifies a perfectly moral man.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dk
For NC and scombrid...
then a psychopath completely consumed by unrestrained passion personifies a perfectly moral man.

I guess the psychopath's actions aren't tempered by reason then and thus aren't perfectly moral by my idea of morality either.

This is just another iteration of the whole nature vs. nurture argument in determining personnality. The answer almost always comes out, Both.

Hell, a psychopath's actions aren't even tempered by natural law as he is compelled by an urge not felt by other members of his community (or he fails to be compeled by social influence). Empathy and the urge to conform to a social norm aren't taught or reasoned, they're gut feelings. Our reason and the social environment in which we're raised affect the way that we perceive these and act them out.

Playing the evopsych game one can relate the Islamic view of women to the old struggle between male and female over reproductive control that is ubiquitous throughout higher animals. They're like the buck deer keeping his harem and excluding other males. The Islamic model is perfect from the male standpoint, he is able to mate with several partners and can be assured that all of the offspring that he raises are all his by the strict cloistering of his harem minimizing the chance that one will mate with another male.

[dk]

Originally posted by scombrid
I guess the psychopath's actions aren't tempered by reason then and thus aren't perfectly moral by my idea of morality either. ?The idea of morality? how does one arrive at the conclusion that "morality is an idea".

Originally posted by scombrid This is just another iteration of the whole nature vs. nurture argument in determining personnality. The answer almost always comes out, Both. Every tendency of human conduct constructed by the human intellect assigns the nature nurture argument, where personality is but an aspect of the greater whole.

Originally posted by scombrid
Hell, a psychopath's actions aren't even tempered by natural law as he is compelled by an urge not felt by other members of his community (or he fails to be compeled by social influence). Empathy and the urge to conform to a social norm aren't taught or reasoned, they're gut feelings. Our reason and the social environment in which we're raised affect the way that we perceive these and act them out. I'm not sure what you mean by temper, 1) like blacksmith temper's steel, or 2) mercy tempers justice. The actions of psychopath consumed by passion are unrestrained and therefore honest (true) when reason is subscribed to passion.

Originally posted by scombrid
Playing the evopsych game one can relate the Islamic view of women to the old struggle between male and female over reproductive control that is ubiquitous throughout higher animals. They're like the buck deer keeping his harem and excluding other males. The Islamic model is perfect from the male standpoint, he is able to mate with several partners and can be assured that all of the offspring that he raises are all his by the strict cloistering of his harem minimizing the chance that one will mate with another male. I'm not into the evopsych game, except to say whatever human beings were before they became human, was something else that doesn't describe the "whatness" of human at all, much less Islam. For example, a block of marble dug out of a quarry might become a statue, but the marble block doesn't describe the statue, and the tools used to shape the marble don't describe the statue, and even the artist commissioned to do the work doesn't describe the statue, so how can anyone possibly know what the statue ought to look like? and that's the moral question, and the only one that can possibly answer a moral question is the person that commissioned the work of art. At least from an evolutionary perspective.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by scombrid
Morality based solely on reason doesn't exist, no.

Good, I am glad to hear it.

Originally posted by scombrid
Morality based on emotion tempered by reason exists

I think more to the point would be one emotion overriding another emotion. Whenever we are presented with conflicting emotions, one must eventually override the other.

Originally posted by scombrid
and is far superior to morality based on dogmatic myths.

You say that secular morality is far superior to ALL morality based on dogmatic myths, but you haven't proven that assertion. Perhaps it is superior to SOME morality based on dogmatic myths, but you haven't proven that it's superior to ALL dogmatic myths.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
Secular morality isn't based on reason. Secular morality is based on the DESIRES, WHIMS (in many cases), and EMOTIONS of SOME people, not ALL people.

Dr Rick
That doesn't even remotely make sense.

I stand by my statement because you give me no reason to reject it.

Dr Rick
There is no distinct "secular morality" any more than there is a distinct "theistic morality." Different secularists, like different theists, may and do have different morals.

I never argued that different secularists with different morals don't exist. They, in fact, do exist. Not all secularists have the same desires and not all of them feel the same way about certain issues. My point still stands.

Dr Rick
Besides, who here has advocated basing morality on "WHIMS" when it is you that has argued for the right of Muslim men to have sex with their wives whenever they "desire?" That certainly isn't based on the "emotions" of "all people," especially women.

Islam isn't based on my WHIMS, or the WHIMS of any other Muslim men living right now. Islam is based on beliefs which haven't changed for over 1400 years. If you FEEL that your WHIMS, or the WHIMS of other liberals, are far superior to the 1400 year-old beliefs of Islam, then support your assertion.

Islam isn't based on REASON, anymore than your morality, or the morality of other liberals, is based on REASON. Therefore, we are left to compare the WHIMS of liberals with the 1400 year-old beliefs of Islam, which, in and of itself, could be considered to be a rational activity.

Dr Rick
No one here is advocationg morality based on the desires of some except you.

If people are not basing their moral beliefs on some ancient tradition, then they are basing their moral beliefs on some modern WHIM. I see no evidence that morality evolves in some Hegelian fashion, and I see no evidence that we are more morally evolved in the modern world than the ancient world was.

[Theli]

Or how about the entire welfare system ?
Obviously the welfare system was not designed so that some people would "leech" on it all their lives, this is not the impression I have been given.
If you want to try convincing me this is mostly instinct, I'm going to ask you where a fully-fledged social security system lies in waiting in the DNA.
Social security system is not morality. I said morality is mostly based on emotions. Laws for instance is not morality, but it is based on morality (in most cases), the simple rule of not causing harm to other people. Judging from the great number of labels we use when we discuss morality and how dogmaticly we hold on to the attributes we have given them I would say that most of our morality is based on our tribal mentality. Something wich may have served us when we actually lived in tribes, but is now just a handicap. Anyway...
Theli:
About granting a "doomed" child the same rights as one that has a future there is no reason besides our common sympathy for a human life for doing so.

Gurdur:
Your opinion again --- others have different opinions.
Again, this is not a poll. Mere opinions does not matter. If you can show me a reason then I'll accept that, but if you say it's just your "opinion", then how can I know that your opinion is based on reason?
Now you're arguing for some version of psychological determinism with regard to choice in morality.
I have never argued otherwise. All I was saying was that the chain of events that leads to someone holding a certain moral code doesn't stop at a choice. Judging from your last post, it seemed you were contempt with using "choice" as the ultimate explaination for people's morality.
You're going to have major difficulties in explaining the wide range of human cultural histories and moralities.
The morality that people live by is ofcourse colored by politics and history of the culture in question. But neither of those are very cognitive.
The power of choice in human morality is the easiest explanation in explaining just what we observe over time in human societies and individuals.
And the easiest explaination for the human consciousness is the soul, but it doesn't really explain anything. Neither does "choice" explain anything.
Let me just ask you, why do people choose to be moral in first place?

I'll leave most of the determinism debate for the philosophy board, it doesn't belong here.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Theli

Obviously the welfare system was not designed so that some people would "leech" on it all their lives, this is not the impression I have been given.Completely irrelevant a comment.
The social security system is an example of implemented morality.
End of story.
Social security system is not morality.
Most certainly it is. It is the result of many voters determining how people should be treated by society and government.
That is morality.
I said morality is mostly based on emotions. Laws for instance is not morality, but it is based on morality (in most cases),
You're not tackling the point head-on. Laws are implemented morality; the fact there's always the added dimension of implementation itself does not alter the fact.
..... I would say that most of our morality is based on our tribal mentality. Something wich may have served us when we actually lived in tribes, but is now just a handicap.
A little bit of evidence from you for all these assertions would greatly help the discussion.
Again, this is not a poll. Mere opinions does not matter.
Wrong.
Mere opinions do matter; at every election, at every daily implementation of ethical concerns.
Very obviously, the majority of opinions will have a great effect on society in any democracy.

Additionally, recognizing an opinion is merely subjective and not some objective "truth" greatly facilitates reasoning.
If you can show me a reason then I'll accept that, but if you say it's just your "opinion", then how can I know that your opinion is based on reason? Odd.
Who says my claim is based on whatever you call "reason" ?
My claims are based on observation; that is, observation of physical evolution and cultural histories, as well as daily life.

If you mean what is my personal ethical opinion, then there are clues to that already. Whether or not you would choose to accept my ethical opinion depends on your whole worldview system of values.
The morality that people live by is ofcourse colored by politics and history of the culture in question. But neither of those are very cognitive.
Yet another unsubstantiated assertion --- and what do you mean ?
Politics is not very cognitive ? Oh please. We don't run elections as chimpanzees might run a social hierarchy; we put a lot of cognitive effort into elections.
And the easiest explaination for the human consciousness is the soul,
IMHO, that's a flat-out wrong claim.
A far easier explanation is physical evolution and effects of complexity.
Let me just ask you, why do people choose to be moral in first place? Physical evolution and effects of complexity, cultural histories, individual cognition and social constructs.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
....
Islam isn't based on my WHIMS, or the WHIMS of any other Muslim men living right now. Islam is based on beliefs which haven't changed for over 1400 years.
So it's based on 1400-year-old whims. And ?
If you FEEL that your WHIMS, or the WHIMS of other liberals, are far superior to the 1400 year-old beliefs of Islam, then support your assertion.
Why ?
What extra authority does 1400 years give to whims ?

Therefore, we are left to compare the WHIMS of liberals with the 1400 year-old beliefs of Islam,
And those liberals choose other than Islam.

If people are not basing their moral beliefs on some ancient tradition, then they are basing their moral beliefs on some modern WHIM. You mean that if people are not basing their moral beliefs on some ancient whim, then they are basing their moral beliefs on some modern whim.

Well, if you want to put it like that, you might almost have a point. But it's still wrong; governmental and health regulations and procedures demand much reasoning in formation and implemenation;

and all that modern technology means extra ethical questions and possibilities which simply didn't exist 1400 years ago, which might give you a clue as to why Islam might simply be insufficient.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
Islam isn't based on my WHIMS, or the WHIMS of any other Muslim men living right now. Islam is based on beliefs which haven't changed for over 1400 years.

Gurdur:
So it's based on 1400-year-old whims. And ?

If you want to put it that way, fine. I am not going to argue the point, for now, because my main objective is to argue that liberals are being less than honest when they imply that their morality is based on REASON; therefore, it's superior to ALL religious dogma. Their morality is based on their WHIMS.

NC:
If you FEEL that your WHIMS, or the WHIMS of other liberals, are far superior to the 1400 year-old beliefs of Islam, then support your assertion.

Gurdur:
Why ?

What kind of question is that? Shouldn't you have to support your assertions?

Gurdur:
What extra authority does 1400 years give to whims ?

You are missing the point. Liberals here are the ones who are implying that their morality is superior to Islamic morality. They are the ones who are claiming that Islam is a misogynistic, oppressive, slavish, dogmatic, backward religion, which implies that they believe that their morality is superior. Why shouldn't they have to rationally justify their position? If their morality is based on their WHIMS, DESIRES, and EMOTIONS, then what makes their WHIMS better than the WHIMS, as you call them, of Islam? What makes their FEELINGS better than anybody else's FEELINGS? What makes their WHIMS better than anybody else's WHIMS? Are most liberals that egotistical and self-centered that they fail to realize that the whole world doesn't revolve around how they FEEL about what is right and wrong?

NC:
Therefore, we are left to compare the WHIMS of liberals with the 1400 year-old beliefs of Islam,

Gurdur:
And those liberals choose other than Islam.

And that is fine, but they are going beyond that. They are implying that their REASON, which is nothing more than a front for their WHIMS, is morally superior to Islam. It's dishonest for them to trash the reputation of Islam in the name of REASON, when their REASON is nothing more than a front for their WHIMS. I am going to pull the pants off of the Emperor here.

NC:
If people are not basing their moral beliefs on some ancient tradition, then they are basing their moral beliefs on some modern WHIM.

Gurdur:
You mean that if people are not basing their moral beliefs on some ancient whim, then they are basing their moral beliefs on some modern whim.

Well, if you want to put it like that, you might almost have a point.

If you want to word it that I way, then I am not going to argue the point for now. I don't want to detract from the main point that I am making, now.

Gurdur:
But it's still wrong;

How can you say on one hand that I may have a point, while on the other hand, you say, very flatly, that I am wrong. If you admit that I may have a point, then how are you so sure that I am wrong?

Gurdur:
governmental and health regulations and procedures demand much reasoning in formation and implemenation;

and all that modern technology means extra ethical questions and possibilities which simply didn't exist 1400 years ago, which might give you a clue as to why Islam might simply be insufficient.

It's a fallacy to feel that just because human society is far more complex and complicated than it was 1400 years ago that simple rules should be discarded to govern society. Only a fool would argue that the simple rules of Islam should be discarded simply because there are no texts governing traffic laws.

We have a very complicated tax code in the US, which no politician would dare to say is fair for everybody. We have an extremely complicated legal system in the US, but nobody, not even American lawyers, would claim that it's a good system. We have more lawyers than any other country in the world, but where is the justice?

Justice is a very simple concept, but it has been made very complicated in the modern world for quite obvious reasons.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If you want to put it that way, fine. I am not going to argue the point, for now, because my main objective is to argue that liberals are being less than honest when they imply that their morality is based on REASON; therefore, it's superior to ALL religious dogma. Their morality is based on their WHIMS.

Liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination.

You are missing the point. Liberals here are the ones who are implying that their morality is superior to Islamic morality. They are the ones who are claiming that Islam is a misogynistic, oppressive, slavish, dogmatic, backward religion, which implies that they believe that their morality is superior. Why shouldn't they have to rationally justify their position? If their morality is based on their WHIMS, DESIRES, and EMOTIONS, then what makes their WHIMS better than the WHIMS, as you call them, of Islam? What makes their FEELINGS better than anybody else's FEELINGS? What makes their WHIMS better than anybody else's WHIMS? Are most liberals that egotistical and self-centered that they fail to realize that the whole world doesn't revolve around how they FEEL about what is right and wrong?

All of these arguments could be applied to slavery and genocide, too. For the same reasons we reject slavery and genocide, we reject oppressing women.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
If you want to put it that way, fine. I am not going to argue the point, for now, because my main objective is to argue that liberals are being less than honest when they imply that their morality is based on REASON; therefore, it's superior to ALL religious dogma. Their morality is based on their WHIMS.

Dr. Rick:
Liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination.

You are not really saying anything because now I can ask the question, "What is freedom and self-determination based on?" Sooner or later, you must find a fundamental basis for all of your claims. Typically, the liberals have claimed that REASON is the basis for all of their claims, but the truth is it's their WHIMS.

NC:
You are missing the point. Liberals here are the ones who are implying that their morality is superior to Islamic morality. They are the ones who are claiming that Islam is a misogynistic, oppressive, slavish, dogmatic, backward religion, which implies that they believe that their morality is superior. Why shouldn't they have to rationally justify their position? If their morality is based on their WHIMS, DESIRES, and EMOTIONS, then what makes their WHIMS better than the WHIMS, as you call them, of Islam? What makes their FEELINGS better than anybody else's FEELINGS? What makes their WHIMS better than anybody else's WHIMS? Are most liberals that egotistical and self-centered that they fail to realize that the whole world doesn't revolve around how they FEEL about what is right and wrong?

Dr. Rick:
All of these arguments could be applied to slavery and genocide, too. For the same reasons we reject slavery and genocide, we reject oppressing women.

For the same reasons you reject slavery and genocide, you reject oppressing women, and the reason why you reject slavery is because you FEEL it's wrong. Slave holders FELT they had a right to own slaves. The point is what makes how you FEEL better than how they FELT? Yes, you may be able to get the crowd worked up into an emotional frenzy about how you FEEL about slavery and Islam, but do you think that you are proving anything? Your subjective FEELINGS about slavery and Islam don't constitute proof that slavery and Islam are, in any objective sense of the word, evil. You can get up on a soap box and condemn Islam and slavery all that you want, working the crowd up into an emotional frenzy, but you are not proving anything, so get off of your soap box.

[NonContradiction]

Theli:
Again, this is not a poll. Mere opinions does not matter.

Gurdur:
Wrong.
Mere opinions do matter; at every election, at every daily implementation of ethical concerns.

Yes, if your morality is based on a primitive concept that whatever the majority of the members of the tribe say is right is right and whatever they say is wrong is wrong.

Gurdur:
Very obviously, the majority of opinions will have a great effect on society in any democracy.

Yes, no doubt. I think that it's that way in any primitive tribal community, your democracy being no exception.

Gurdur:
Additionally, recognizing an opinion is merely subjective and not some objective "truth" greatly facilitates reasoning.

Where is Dr. Rick's irony meter when we need it? The subjective FEELINGS of the members of the tribe do not constitute some objective truth about what is good and evil. The liberals can condemn Islam and slavery all they WANT, but in the end, the basis for their condemnation is nothing more than their own subjective FEELINGS. They are just working the members of the tribe up into a "foaming at the mouth" frenzy. This kind of mentality is very dangerous, as we have witnessed in the past in the Rodney King affair.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
For the same reasons you reject slavery and genocide, you reject oppressing women, and the reason why you reject slavery is because you FEEL it's wrong. Slave holders FELT they had a right to own slaves. The point is what makes how you FEEL better than how they FELT? Yes, you may be able to get the crowd worked up into an emotional frenzy about how you FEEL about slavery and Islam, but do you think that you are proving anything? Your subjective FEELINGS about slavery and Islam don't constitute proof that slavery and Islam are, in any objective sense of the word, evil. You can get up on a soap box and condemn Islam and slavery all that you want, working the crowd up into an emotional frenzy, but you are not proving anything, so get off of your soap box.

That's really disgusting; there's no other way to describe it.

Of course, no one can "prove" morailty, but now your argument has been reduced to just moral nihilism.

If you really see nothing wrong with slavery and genocide, then there's no point in arguing with you about any other evils.