Covering up women

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

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.
oooo, I'ld say the "primitive" concept of democracy is a hell of a lot more modern and rational than 1400-year-old whims heavily influenced by tribalism.
:)
Yes, no doubt. I think that it's that way in any primitive tribal community, your democracy being no exception.
Yaaaarr, that democracy being why you can say that freely here, but human-rights activists can be persecuted in Egypt or Pakistan or elsewhere.
Where is Dr. Rick's irony meter when we need it?
I'm using it, discreetly.
;)
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. Putting RANDOM words in UPPER case lettering does not help you back up EMPTY assertions.
I've already shown you that it's not just feelings, and you've dismally failed to deal with my concrete examples, you've simply evaded them.
I think we see far greater dangers of "foaming at the mouth" frenzies when we witness sharia law in action, the Sudan government, and fatwas aimed at Salman Rushdie and others.
;)

[seebs]

I don't think democracy produces answers to moral questions in any useful sense. I would bet you that, sometime in the late 1930's, a nationwide vote in Germany would have produced a majority in favor of some substantial portions of the Final Solution. The ability to produce a majority vote in favor of something doesn't make it moral.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by seebs

I don't think democracy produces answers to moral questions in any useful sense.
Most certainly it does; it tends to balancing out and promoting balancing out different interests and interest groups.
It promotes bargaining rather than open warfare.
Those are themselves useful answers to moral questions.
I would bet you that, sometime in the late 1930's, a nationwide vote in Germany would have produced a majority in favor of some substantial portions of the Final Solution.
You have a point but you blew it with your example ---- you're simply wrong about your prediction regarding 1930's Germany.
Even the death camps were routinely hidden well away, and several initial efforts in public to first take away and murder retarded children were blocked in public, before the Final Solution was put into effect.
Plus of course you should read up on Bonhöffer and the Barmen Declaration group and church (*), and political opposition to the Nazis pre-1933.

BTW, the Nazis never had a real majority ever; their initial success with the state government of East Prussia was owing to outright intimidation and electoral fraud.
The ability to produce a majority vote in favor of something doesn't make it moral. Now tell me --- who said it does ?
You're slightly confused on what the basic ground is:
A law is implemented morality --- but that might not accord with your morality, and therefore be immoral in your eyes.

Here we have a descriptive/prescriptive division:
you're talking about what is moral ,

I'm talking about how morality is codefied and implemented

IOW;
The ability to produce a majority vote in favor of something makes it an implemented case of morality.
According to individual opinions, that implented morality may be immoral.
That is no different from recognizing one man's fish is another man's poisson.

I'll repeat my previous statements in slightly different words:

on the whole, democracy is far more likely to to produce beneficial moral results than any form of authoritarianism, including religious authoritarianism, the point of discussion.
________

(*) Why the hell does it require a hardcore atheist to mention the Barmen Declaration ?
Oh ironies of life.

[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.

NC: 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.

You haven't responded to my question. If liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination, as you say it is, then what is the basis for freedom and self-determination?

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dk
?The idea of morality? how does one arrive at the conclusion that "morality is an idea".

Well morality is obviously not an absolute. Slavery and holocaust are justified one decade. Still another time and culture the men won't grant women the same freedoms that they enjoy, for no particular reason, just because they're women. A lot of this behavior is very animalistic with a veneer of reason. When I speak of "my idea of morality" I speak figuraitively of my opinions and hypotheses regarding the origin and human expression of morality.

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.

To temper: To modify by the addition of a moderating element; moderate: “temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom” (Robert H. Jackson).

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.

Terrible analogy. It's still marble. It still has all the traits of marble. Likewise we're still mamals. We still have all the traits of mamals. This analogy assumes that while superficially animals, we were created and given something extra. That's hardly looking at things from an evolutionary perspective.

What's to say that morality isn't our perception of social compulsions that we inherited from our ancestors just as we enherited mamary glands and fur?

[NonContradiction]

Gurdur oooo, I'ld say the "primitive" concept of democracy is a hell of a lot more modern and rational than 1400-year-old whims heavily influenced by tribalism.
:)

I think that democracy is more ancient than Islam since it goes back to the ancient Greek civilization. I think that the Arab-Islamic civilization came after the Greeks, IIRC, but in all honesty, it doesn't make a difference, anyway, because modern isn't better simply because it's modern. I see no reason to think that modern morality is more highly evolved than ancient morality. If anything, I think that modern man is dumber since it certainly appears as though he didn't learn much from the mistakes of the ancient people.

Second, if you want to call Islam a religion of 1400-year-old whims (BTW, why are your whims better?), as I said before, I am not going to argue that point for now, but when you say that Islam was heavily influenced by tribalism, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Arabs were always, and still are, fiercely independent people. For that reason, they never had a king to govern all of the tribes as the Jews did. Each tribe was independent of the other tribe, but they did work out a code of ethics between themselves to govern how to deal with each other. That code of ethics sometimes involved tribal wars that would last decades over the most trivial dispute. There was no man, in the whole history of the Arabs, that stood more against tribalism than Muhammad did. You are talking out of another part of your body when you say that Islam was heavily influenced by tribalism. You are just showing your ignorance of Islam.

Third, you make the claim that democracy is more rational, but what is so rational about a majority of people, some who could even be yahoos or KKK types, coming together and voting on what they FEEL is right or wrong? What is it that makes democracy so rational? Besides, history has shown us that the majority of people, throughout history, tend to behave like lost sheep. What is so rational about the majority of people being duped by a minority?

Gurdur: Yaaaarr, that democracy being why you can say that freely here,

My friend, a professor at a university, was fired because he walked in on a discussion about homosexuality among his students. They asked him his opinion and he told them that he thought that it was wrong. He was reported to the Dean for expressing his opinion and was summarily dismissed from his post.

Don't tell me about freedom in America because it's all BS. Muslims are being deported, arrested, having their assets seized, and they don't even know what the charges are because of the rules for secret evidence. Don't tell me about freedom of speech or any other kind of freedom in America. It's all a bunch of crap. We have the freedom to say whatever we want to, but we know that there are people listening to us who don't like us and could bring false charges against us at any time. Someone could accuse me of being a terrorist, even though I am not, but I would have to spend the rest of my life and all of my resources to just prove that I am not guilty. Muslims are always having to prove that they and their religion are not guilty. Isn't freedom wonderful in America?

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
but when you say that Islam was heavily influenced by tribalism, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Arabs were always, and still are, fiercely independent people. For that reason, they never had a king to govern all of the tribes as the Jews did. Each tribe was independent of the other tribe, but they did work out a code of ethics between themselves to govern how to deal with each other. That code of ethics sometimes involved tribal wars that would last decades over the most trivial dispute. There was no man, in the whole history of the Arabs, that stood more against tribalism than Muhammad did. You are talking out of another part of your body when you say that Islam was heavily influenced by tribalism. You are just showing your ignorance of Islam.

How did the intense tribalism, that was always and still is typical of Arabs, not influence Islam? Within a country as small as Iraq we have Islamic sects that are as divergent as Catholics and Baptists. How is that not an expression of the influence of tribalism on Islam? It doesn't matter if Muhannad didn't like tribalism, it still affects modern interpretation and expression of Islamic faith.

Third, you make the claim that democracy is more rational, but what is so rational about a majority of people, some who could even be yahoos or KKK types, coming together and voting on what they FEEL is right or wrong? What is it that makes democracy so rational? Besides, history has shown us that the majority of people, throughout history, tend to behave like lost sheep. What is so rational about the majority of people being duped by a minority?

That's why we have a representative democracy to protect us from the idiot masses. Unfortunately we've got idiots in office now. We're screwed.



My friend, a professor at a university, was fired because he walked in on a discussion about homosexuality among his students. They asked him his opinion and he told them that he thought that it was wrong. He was reported to the Dean for expressing his opinion and was summarily dismissed from his post.

I'd like to hear the full extent of that exchange. He either really flammed fags (condemnation to hell or some such) or he was already in really poor standing at the university. I'm currently at a very liberal college and we've got our token conservatives.

Don't tell me about freedom in America because it's all BS. Muslims are being deported, arrested, having their assets seized, and they don't even know what the charges are because of the rules for secret evidence. Don't tell me about freedom of speech or any other kind of freedom in America. It's all a bunch of crap. We have the freedom to say whatever we want to, but we know that there are people listening to us who don't like us and could bring false charges against us at any time. Someone could accuse me of being a terrorist, even though I am not, but I would have to spend the rest of my life and all of my resources to just prove that I am not guilty. Muslims are always having to prove that they and their religion are not guilty. Isn't freedom wonderful in America?

Well we've got the idiot Christian right in power. They'd have the religious police out like the Saudis if we let them.

Oh yeah, you want lack of freedom.

I wonder how and atheist or xtian would be treated there.

Muslim reason (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

..... I see no reason to think that modern morality is more highly evolved than ancient morality. If anything, I think that modern man is dumber
Yeah, so annoying for you, women no longer being considered property, ethical consensus against slavery etc.
Second, if you want to call Islam a religion of 1400-year-old whims (BTW, why are your whims better?), as I said before, I am not going to argue that point for now,
Yeah, it's a bugger, isn't it ?
You look at "liberals" and shout "WHIMS" !
I look at Islamists and sardonically reply "Whims !"
A bit unanswerable, isn't it ?
:D
You are just showing your ignorance of Islam.
ooooo, I wouldn't say that --- especially since you've evaded my previous point about all those tribalist whims being caught up with Islam.
I mean, you gonna try claiming the Afghani burka is definitely more Islamic in comparison to an Egyptian scarf ?
:D
Third, you make the claim that democracy is more rational, but what is so rational about a majority of people, some who could even be yahoos or KKK types, coming together and voting on what they FEEL is right or wrong?
It's more rational than theocrats proclaiming what they FEEL to be right and demanding the power to impose it on everyone else.
:)
Don't tell me about freedom in America because it's all BS. I won't. You keep on making massive mistakes, like claiming I'm talking about freedom in America.
;)
I'm talking about the democratic freedom that allows you to express your opinion freely. Or not to wear a burka if you're a woman. As opposed to Islamic theocracy.
;)

[lpetrich]

And Islam has not been absolutely constant. Consider attitudes toward homosexuality in Islamic societies. Though Islamic jurists have been uncompromisingly anti-homosexual, Islamic societies have traditionally had a curious tolerance for some forms of it -- a tolerance that has evaporated over the last half-century.

Thus, Abu Nuwas described women as dangerous but boys as great to have sex with. And when Napoleon conquered Cairo, that city's inhabitants found very shocking their conquerors' ... female prostitutes. Male ones were OK with them, however.

And in the Koran itself, one of the joys of the Islamic Paradise is to have lots of cute boy servants.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by lpetrich
And Islam has not been absolutely constant. Consider attitudes toward homosexuality in Islamic societies. Though Islamic jurists have been uncompromisingly anti-homosexual, Islamic societies have traditionally had a curious tolerance for some forms of it -- a tolerance that has evaporated over the last half-century.

Thus, Abu Nuwas described women as dangerous but boys as great to have sex with. And when Napoleon conquered Cairo, that city's inhabitants found very shocking their conquerors' ... female prostitutes. Male ones were OK with them, however.

And in the Koran itself, one of the joys of the Islamic Paradise is to have lots of cute boy servants.

The purpose of your post here is to offend. I don't see any other way of looking at it. Perhaps you would like to answer the question that I posed to Dr. Rick. If liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination, as Dr. Rick said it is, then what is the basis for freedom and self-determination?

[lpetrich]

NC, you were the one celebrating the allegedly gloriously constant Islamic tradition. I present counterevidence and you fly off the handle.

[NonContradiction]

NC:
The purpose of your post here is to offend. I don't see any other way of looking at it. Perhaps you would like to answer the question that I posed to Dr. Rick. If liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination, as Dr. Rick said it is, then what is the basis for freedom and self-determination?

lpetrich:
NC, you were the one celebrating the allegedly gloriously constant Islamic tradition. I present counterevidence and you fly off the handle.

If I were to fly off the handle, as you phrase it, then I would be turning control of my emotions over to you and the rest of the liberals, and that isn't something that I would want to do.

Now, would you mind answering the question that is still sitting on the table. If liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination, as Dr. Rick said it is, then what is the basis for freedom and self-determination?

[dk]

Originally posted by scombrid
Well morality is obviously not an absolute. Slavery and holocaust are justified one decade. Still another time and culture the men won't grant women the same freedoms that they enjoy, for no particular reason, just because they're women. A lot of this behavior is very animalistic with a veneer of reason. When I speak of "my idea of morality" I speak figuraitively of my opinions and hypotheses regarding the origin and human expression of morality. That's not a response to the question I asked. I'm not trying to put ideas in your mouth, but an answer to my question would be of the form, "I conclude Morality is an idea because it constructs/explains substantive conduct contingent upon a person's free will i.e. explains conduct in terms of right/good and wrong/evil".

Originally posted by scombrid
To temper: To modify by the addition of a moderating element; moderate: “temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom” (Robert H. Jackson). Ok, you've meant "temper" as an analogy that lacks substance. One might also say, "temper justice with morality", even though there's no possible connection to Positive (scientific or secular) Law. In effect you opened door, and conceded to NC, because in an Islam Nation they do temper justice with morality, based upon traditions passed down for 1,400 years.


Originally posted by scombrid
Terrible analogy. It's still marble. It still has all the traits of marble. Likewise we're still mamals. We still have all the traits of mamals. This analogy assumes that while superficially animals, we were created and given something extra. That's hardly looking at things from an evolutionary perspective.

What's to say that morality isn't our perception of social compulsions that we inherited from our ancestors just as we enherited mamary glands and fur? Actually its not my analogy, but Aristotles. And it certainly shows that the apperance of a thing (like dress codes) is often misleading. Reason requires us to look past the appearance of a thing to discover its nature. This holds true for Islam and NATO cultures. This alone, in my opinion, is reason enough not to attack Islam on the bases on dress codes.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
...would you mind answering the question that is still sitting on the table. If liberal morality is based on freedom and self-determination, as Dr. Rick said it is, then what is the basis for freedom and self-determination?

It was essentially answered before, after:
NonContradiction posted this (he subsequently recanted and claimed "there is NO such thing as human rights," then recanted again when he was asked but 'don't babies don't have a right to life?' which he answered "yes" and said he would have to "think" about his reasoning some more:
Human rights, as well as morality, as far as I am concerned, should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources.

Freedom and self-determination are fundamental human rights.

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. These rights include freedom and self-determination, as illustrated in the The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/un-decla.html) (UNDHR) which states that Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex. language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms, All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person

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. [that's when NC explicitly argued that there is "no such thing as human rights," then reversed himself and said there are but had to "think" about them some more] 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. That's the only way NC can justify oppressing women, and by his own "reasoning," slavery and genocide, too.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dk
Ok, you've meant "temper" as an analogy that lacks substance. One might also say, "temper justice with morality", even though there's no possible connection to Positive (scientific or secular) Law. In effect you opened door, and conceded to NC, because in an Islam Nation they do temper justice with morality, based upon traditions passed down for 1,400 years.

Temper is not an analogy, it is a verb meaning "To modify by the addition of a moderating element". Our base urges are tempered by reason. Reason is a moderating element.


Actually its not my analogy, but Aristotles. And it certainly shows that the apperance of a thing (like dress codes) is often misleading. Reason requires us to look past the appearance of a thing to discover its nature. This holds true for Islam and NATO cultures. This alone, in my opinion, is reason enough not to attack Islam on the bases on dress codes.]

In the case of the dress code, it is a symtom of the nature of Islamic culture. It doesn't give an appearance contrary to the nature of Islamic culture, it advertises the nature of Islamic culture.

[dk]

Originally posted by scombrid
Temper is not an analogy, it is a verb meaning "To modify by the addition of a moderating element". Our base urges are tempered by reason. Reason is a moderating element. Since…justice, equality, equity, mercy...etc are not elements like Iron, you must have meant to use another word, otherwise "temper" is allegorical i.e. a symbolic representation.

Originally posted by scombrid
In the case of the dress code, it is a symtom of the nature of Islamic culture. It doesn't give an appearance contrary to the nature of Islamic culture, it advertises the nature of Islamic culture. You just described Isalm as a disease, is that what you meant to say?...I hope not.

[NonContradiction]

Dr. Rick:
NonContradiction posted this (he subsequently recanted and claimed "there is NO such thing as human rights," then recanted again when he was asked but 'don't babies don't have a right to life?' which he answered "yes" and said he would have to "think" about his reasoning some more:
Human rights, as well as morality, as far as I am concerned, should be grounded in tradition as opposed to non-traditional sources.

I have never, and would never, deny human rights. I never said that there is no such thing as human rights. What I did say was that no one is entitled to any human rights without performing some sort of duty. You then asked me about whether or not infants had rights or not, and at that point, I immediately realized that my statement, although well intentioned, was not worded very well. Infants do have rights, yet they have no duties.

Dr. Rick:
Freedom and self-determination are fundamental human rights.

Okay, so freedom and self-determination are your fundamental beliefs, or assumptions, that you are making. Upon those assumptions, you are building your moral theory.

The objections I have with accepting those assumptions is that any discussion of morality, as far as I am concerned, implies a restriction of freedom. It's a job to be a moral person, and just like any job, you have a job description, responsibilities of the job, and job accountability. When discussing what it is to be a moral being, we are not talking about freedom, at all, but rather what restrictions we are going to have on our freedom.

Freedom is implied. You are free to do whatever you would like to do after you have fulfilled the responsibilities of what it means to be a moral being. Infants cannot be morally culpable, so they are not moral beings.

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.

The objection that I have here is that there is no agreement among liberals upon the origins of human rights. You are affirming inherent human rights, whereas Nowhere357 vehemently denied, on many different occasions in this thread, that human beings don't have any inherent rights at all. Both of you cannot be correct. What is very ironic is that both of you appealed to the UNDHR in your arguments with me, but both of you are very much divided on the origins of those rights.

Dr. Rick:
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. [that's when NC explicitly argued that there is "no such thing as human rights," then reversed himself and said there are but had to "think" about them some more] 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.

I have never argued that human beings have no human rights. My argument is that there is something more fundamental than human rights, and that is responsibility and accountability before the Creator of all mankind. Now, of course, many liberals will immediately attack my fundamental belief by demanding empirical evidence, of which there is none, for the existence of the Creator. What most liberals fail to realize is that there is just as much empirical evidence for their fundamental beliefs as there is for mine. There is just as much empirical evidence that we have inherent human rights as there is for the existence of the Creator. I know that most of them will vehemently argue with me on this point because they want to believe that they are a drop of reason in a pool of confusion, but the truth, as far as I am concerned, is that their fundamental beliefs are not based on human reason anymore than mine are.

I believe that most liberals, in their ignorance, are actually undermining human rights by attacking the fundamental belief in responsibility and accountability before the Creator of all mankind.

Dr. Rick:
NC is correct in that all beliefs are founded upon certain assumptions,

Yes, and there is just as much empirical evidence to support your belief that we have inherent human rights as there is to support my belief that all of mankind is responsible and accountable before their Creator. I am glad that we are in agreement that fundamental beliefs cannot be supported.

Dr. Rick:
but the only assumption that can ultimately justify his argument is that there is really no such thing as human rights.

I would never argue that there is no such thing as human rights. My argument is that belief in responsibility and accountability before the Creator of mankind is the basis of freedom and self-determination. For you, human rights are an assumption that you are making, and a fundamental belief, but for me, they are not.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dk
Since…justice, equality, equity, mercy...etc are not elements like Iron, you must have meant to use another word, otherwise "temper" is allegorical i.e. a symbolic representation.

From Websters: to modify by the addition of a moderating agent or quality; moderate: temper severity with kindness

You just described Isalm as a disease, is that what you meant to say?...I hope not.

No, you missed the point. You said that outward appearance doesn't always convey inward nature. The Islamic dress code does. Islam promotes a double standard of rights for women and men. The dress code is a very visible expression of that double standard.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I have never, and would never, deny human rights.

You are denying human rights when you make these statements:

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights - duties come BEFORE rights.

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.

WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN RIGHTS??? STOP MAKING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE RIGHTS.

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.

It doesn't follow that human beings have rights simply because they exist.

For you, human rights are an assumption that you are making, and a fundamental belief, but for me, they are not.

The conditons and qualifications you are prescribing make a right into something other than a right. A privilege may have to be earned, but not a right. A benefit may not be inherent, but a right is.

Okay, so freedom and self-determination are your fundamental beliefs, or assumptions, that you are making. Upon those assumptions, you are building your moral theory.

Not exactly, but close enough.

The objections I have with accepting those assumptions is that any discussion of morality, as far as I am concerned, implies a restriction of freedom. It's a job to be a moral person, and just like any job, you have a job description, responsibilities of the job, and job accountability. When discussing what it is to be a moral being, we are not talking about freedom, at all, but rather what restrictions we are going to have on our freedom.

Freedom is implied. You are free to do whatever you would like to do after you have fulfilled the responsibilities of what it means to be a moral being.

Freedom is a right, not a privilege. You can forfeit a right, as in commit a crime and go to jail, or sign up for military service, but a person does not have to earn freedom first. A person can be immoral and still be free. You are putting pre-conditions onto rights and in doing so making them "non-rights".

The objection that I have here is that there is no agreement among liberals upon the origins of human rights.

There isn't among "conservatives, either.

Once again, you are making rights contingent, and in doing so, you are making them no longer rights.

We don't have to agree on the origins of somethings to agree that they exist. For instance, you and I probably do not agree on our origins, but we can still agree that we exist.

My argument is that there is something more fundamental than human rights, and that is responsibility and accountability before the Creator of all mankind.

By subserving human rights to something else, you are again denying human rights. Human rights, irrespective of theism, exist as part of being human. Any privileges or benefits we earn or are granted by a "Creator" or anything else are not rights.

[dk]

Originally posted by scombrid
From Websters: to modify by the addition of a moderating agent or quality; moderate: temper severity with kindness Ok.
Originally posted by scombrid
No, you missed the point. You said that outward appearance doesn't always convey inward nature. The Islamic dress code does. Islam promotes a double standard of rights for women and men. The dress code is a very visible expression of that double standard. Symbolic representation of women and men, both have thier own dress codes. The differences between men and women are necessary and essential, and the cloths of women reflect those differneces. Your problem isn't with the dress codes, or even differenet dress codes, but with what the dress codes symbolically represent.

Note: Western clothing stores have mens, womens, boys and girls sections and prices, and women pay more for less. Women's cloths are more expensive. Dry cleaners charge more to wash a women's shirt than a man's shirt. I doubt anyone on this board gives these double standards a second thought, even though they have been specifically calculated to gouge females. Is that because ripping someone off on the basis of gender in a secular society is ok? No, its not ok, and its called pandering and exploiting. We are simply less critical of ourselves because we are hypocrites.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dk

Note: Western clothing stores have mens, womens, boys and girls sections and prices, and women pay more for less. Women's cloths are more expensive.

Supply and demand. That double standard isn't mandated by law or dogma. It's just a by-product of capitalism.

[dk]

Originally posted by scombrid
Supply and demand. That double standard isn't mandated by law or dogma. It's just a by-product of capitalism. Now I'm really confused, so its ok to rip someone off for milk to feed their child, because they desperately need it. Law of Supply and demand. You are absolutely right, Those Muslims are a bunch of commy terrorists, all of em.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I have never, and would never, deny human rights. I never said that there is no such thing as human rights. What I did say was that no one is entitled to any human rights without performing some sort of duty. You then asked me about whether or not infants had rights or not, and at that point, I immediately realized that my statement, although well intentioned, was not worded very well. Infants do have rights, yet they have no duties.

And what dutie must a woman fulfill before she earns her right not to be treated like a possession?

It's a job to be a moral person, and just like any job, you have a job description, responsibilities of the job, and job accountability.

Right. Accountability to other humans with whom you have to share this planet. Or, in earlier times, accountability to others with whom you shared a village.

I have never argued that human beings have no human rights. My argument is that there is something more fundamental than human rights, and that is responsibility and accountability before the Creator of all mankind.

If you get caught stealing who punishes you?
If you're generally dishonest. How does that affect your life? Have you ever seen a liar in hell? No. But you have seen a liar lose his friends I'm sure.
In an Islamic country, if you break one of the religious codes, who punishes you, God or the religious police?

It seems that whatever the rules, be they arbitrary declarations by the mullah or rights that all humans tend to agree upon, it's accountability to man that compels right behavior.


I believe that most liberals, in their ignorance, are actually undermining human rights by attacking the fundamental belief in responsibility and accountability before the Creator of all mankind.

Belief in responsibility and accountability before some creator doesn't necessarily further human rights. Many have used such belief to justify violating human rights. How about the Crusades? Boy that was a great period in history. The muslims hadn't fulfilled their duties that would earn them human rights (I guess believing in christ would have been the appropriate "duty") so the good old Christians had no qualms about killing the infidels. Likewise, it's fine so sentence heretics to death in Pakistan because why? They haven't fulfilled their duty to Allah? Why doesn't Allah get to decide that?

Again, what duties have women breeched to lose rights granted to men?

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dk
Now I'm really confused, so its ok to rip someone off for milk to feed their child, because they desperately need it. Law of Supply and demand. You are absolutely right, Those Muslims are a bunch of commy terrorists, all of em.

Does a woman desperately need 50shirts and designer clothing at that? They're charged because they willingly pay. We aren't talking essential goods or price gauging in a crisis.

What about diamonds? Why should a man have to spend half his income on a friggin rock if he wants to get married? Debeers did a great job marketing and the US idiot culture bought it hook line and sinker. Capitalism. Opportunism. It's not right but it's not institutionalized as muslim cultures oppression of women. Getting charged more for a blouse and being forced to have sex and bare children whether you want to or not are not in the same ballpark.

You need to find a better example of a double standard to support your point.

Go back a bit in history and harp on Women's Suffrage. That would be a worthy double standard that would put us in the old 'let he that be without sin cast the first stone' category. But the thing is, our society (well, most of it) is gradually being convinced that the institutional double standard between men and women was/is wrong and we're correcting it. NC is hardline against granting women the same rights as men and hasn't shown much good justification beyond "God said so" and "It just the right way". Sure he cited some jewish conspiracy theories and the degredation of the home with a wistful longing for a ficticiously glorious past, but none of it was terribly convincing.

[dk]

Originally posted by scombrid
Does a woman desperately need 50shirts and designer clothing at that? They're charged because they willingly pay. We aren't talking essential goods or price gauging in a crisis.

What about diamonds? Why should a man have to spend half his income on a friggin rock if he wants to get married? Debeers did a great job marketing and the US idiot culture bought it hook line and sinker. Capitalism. Opportunism. It's not right but it's not institutionalized as muslim cultures oppression of women. Getting charged more for a blouse and being forced to have sex and bare children whether you want to or not are not in the same ballpark.

You need to find a better example of a double standard to support your point.

Go back a bit in history and harp on Women's Suffrage. That would be a worthy double standard that would put us in the old 'let he that be without sin cast the first stone' category. But the thing is, our society (well, most of it) is gradually being convinced that the institutional double standard between men and women was/is wrong and we're correcting it. NC is hardline against granting women the same rights as men and hasn't shown much good justification beyond "God said so" and "It just the right way". Sure he cited some jewish conspiracy theories and the degredation of the home with a wistful longing for a ficticiously glorious past, but none of it was terribly convincing. The Law of Supply and Demand does not justify gouging anyone, literally or figuratively, and least of all those held in the bondage of sweat shops, white slavery and abject poverty. We should be able to agree upon this, and our willful decent on such basic civil, moral and ethical tenants makes us hypocritical and spiteful people, NOT ISLAM, DRESS CODES, RELIGION, FEMINISM OR LIBERALISM.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You are denying human rights when you make these statements:

Human beings have no RIGHTS, no ENTITLEMENTS, until some sort of work has been performed. No duties, no rights - duties come BEFORE rights.

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 conditons and qualifications you are prescribing make a right into something other than a right. A privilege may have to be earned, but not a right. A benefit may not be inherent, but a right is.

You can talk about human rights all you want, but rights are meaningless without duties. You can say that an infant has an inherent right to life, but if nobody assumes the responsibility for the care of that infant, he/she will die.

NC:
Okay, so freedom and self-determination are your fundamental beliefs, or assumptions, that you are making. Upon those assumptions, you are building your moral theory.

Dr. Rick:
Not exactly, but close enough.

As I said before, it's a job to be a moral being, and fulfilling the responsibilities of any job implies a loss of freedom.

Dr. Rick:
Freedom is a right, not a privilege. You can forfeit a right, as in commit a crime and go to jail,

Is it also an inherent right that you should be able to take other people's inherent rights away from them if they commit crimes? Moreover, I don't see how you could take something away from someone if it was inherent. I think the fact that you could take away a criminals rights implies that those rights were not inherent to begin with.


NC:
The objection that I have here is that there is no agreement among liberals upon the origins of human rights.
Dr. Rick:
There isn't among "conservatives, either.

That's true, but among Muslims, you will not find any disagreement about the origins of human rights.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You can talk about human rights all you want, but rights are meaningless without duties.

Why?

You can repeat that dogma all you like, bnut until you can support it it remains meaningless sophistry.


You can say that an infant has an inherent right to life, but if nobody assumes the responsibility for the care of that infant, he/she will die.

Shit happens


As I said before, it's a job to be a moral being, and fulfilling the responsibilities of any job implies a loss of freedom.

then...


Is it also an inherent right that you should be able to take other people's inherent rights away from them if they commit crimes?


If you'd just stop talking about "inherent" rights it would make more sense. After all you don't believe in inherent rights - you insist they are qualified by responsibilities.


Moreover, I don't see how you could take something away from someone if it was inherent. I think the fact that you could take away a criminals rights implies that those rights were not inherent to begin with.

No indeed - they are an artifact of the social contract

[meritocrat]

You can talk about human rights all you want, but rights are meaningless without duties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why?

You can repeat that dogma all you like, bnut until you can support it it remains meaningless sophistry.


You dispute this?

Rights ARE linked with duties. IMO, human rights are linked with the duty of respecting these rights in others.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by meritocrat
Rights ARE linked with duties. IMO, human rights are linked with the duty of respecting these rights in others.

While I would agree that we have a duty to respect the rights of others, any benefit contingent upon fulfillment of that duty can't really be a right so much as a privilege. The primary instruments that define human rights, such as the UNDHR, do not make those rights contingent upon any performance

As a result, a man who forces his wife to wear a burqa is not respecting the rights of another, but he still has human rights. A baby doesn't have respect fof or even a concept of others' rights, but it still has human rights. Even viscious incarcerated murderers who have forfeited they're right to liberty still have some rights.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
While I would agree that we have a duty to respect the rights of others, any benefit contingent upon fulfillment of that duty can't really be a right so much as a privilege. The primary instruments that define human rights, such as the UNDHR, do not make those rights contingent upon any performance.

There are two ways that you can look at it, Dr. Rick. I am not denying human rights, but having "rights" isn't the only way to think about the problem.

For example, let's say that a man was in an accident and needed medical attention desperately. You could say that the man has a right to medical attention, but if there was no one present at the scene of the accident to administer first aid or call for help, then the man having a right to medical attention is meaningless. Rights only become meaningful if there is someone present to take some sort of responsibility. The examples are endless.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
As a result, a man who forces his wife to wear a burqa is not respecting the rights of another, but he still has human rights.

The question is whether or not the woman has a responsibility to wear the burqa or not. If she doesn't have the responsibility to wear the burqa, then I think it's wrong to punish her for not doing something that she shouldn't have to do.

A comment about responsibilities: I don't think that the responsibilities of men and women are equal. For example, women have a responsibility to nurse their young, but men, for obvious reasons, do not have the same responsibility, assuming that formula isn't available.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
A baby doesn't have respect fof or even a concept of others' rights, but it still has human rights.

An infants rights are meaningless if no one is present to take responsibility for the infant. It's a situation similar to my aforementioned man in need of medical attention.

[dantonac]

An infants rights are meaningless if no one is present to take responsibility for the infant. It's a situation similar to my aforementioned man in need of medical attention.

A right is something a person is due. I have a right to life. Someone may kill me, but that doesn't mean I had no right to life. It also doesn't make that right meaningless except in the sense that the right didn't do me any good.

Being due something does not imply one will get it, just that it is due them.

An infant has rights. The lack of anyone present to ensure that it's right to life is fulfilled doesn't negate the infant's right to life.

You have the right to control your possessions. Your right is not meaningless on account of someone stealing your possessions from you.

When someone is denied or deprived of their right, society generally disapproves of the action and attemtps to punish the wrong doer.

Have a baby and don't feed it and allow it to die. Quickly you will see what I mean :-)

[hinduwoman]

Human rights are given by human society. ALL rights are granted by human beings to each other --- including those that believers think have been given by God.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by meritocrat
You dispute this?

Yes. A "right" is just something we, as a society, decide to do. Many individuals have had tights that did NOT have commensurate responsibilities - such as a kings right to the deer in a forest.


Rights ARE linked with duties. IMO, human rights are linked with the duty of respecting these rights in others.

The langauage or "rights" is the lanbguage of sophistry, and the term means far too many things to too many people to be very useful, IMO.

[Singerian]

Originally posted by contracycle
The langauage or "rights" is the lanbguage of sophistry, and the term means far too many things to too many people to be very useful, IMO. :notworthy Exactly.

[dk]

Originally posted by dantonac
A right is something a person is due. I have a right to life. Someone may kill me, but that doesn't mean I had no right to life. It also doesn't make that right meaningless except in the sense that the right didn't do me any good.
You've put the cart before the horse. Savages and barbarians have no need of human rights, and when conflicts arise violence, terror and tyranny rules, and to the winner go the spoils. The Right to Life has little value in savage and barbaric societies. Its civilization that forces savages and barbarians to value human life by asserting human rights. In effect people(families) that honor the tradition of human rights (priori on a right to life) become civlized, and other people become savage and barbaric.

Originally posted by dantonac
Being due something does not imply one will get it, just that it is due them.
An infant has rights. The lack of anyone present to ensure that it's right to life is fulfilled doesn't negate the infant's right to life.
You have the right to control your possessions. Your right is not meaningless on account of someone stealing your possessions from you.
When someone is denied or deprived of their right, society generally disapproves of the action and attemtps to punish the wrong doer.
Have a baby and don't feed it and allow it to die. Quickly you will see what I mean :-) Tragically, in the post modern world Civilization has become enaemered with the myth of a noble savage, and the possiblities unrestrained liberty entails. The myth fundamentally betrays human rights turning them upside down. Enter stage right "Moral Relativism", or would that be stage left. No matter, any society that idealizes the savage has started down a path that makes civilization impossible.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by dantonac
A right is something a person is due. I have a right to life. Someone may kill me, but that doesn't mean I had no right to life. It also doesn't make that right meaningless except in the sense that the right didn't do me any good.

Being due something does not imply one will get it, just that it is due them.

An infant has rights. The lack of anyone present to ensure that it's right to life is fulfilled doesn't negate the infant's right to life.

You have the right to control your possessions. Your right is not meaningless on account of someone stealing your possessions from you.

When someone is denied or deprived of their right, society generally disapproves of the action and attemtps to punish the wrong doer.

Rights define a relationship between two parties. If you were shipwrecked on a deserted island, would it matter if you had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I suppose that you could write down on a palm leaf that you had such rights, but so what?

Contracycle's position that rights are part of a social contract (I wouldn't call it a social contract as a Muslim, but rather a part of the Abrahamic covenant) is closest to the truth. To postulate that we have inherent rights implies that you have certain rights, regardless whether or not the other party agrees to those rights, not to mention the difficulty explaining how inherent rights originate. Inherent rights were appealed to in order to justify the American revolutiuon against England, but they are nonsense as far as I am concerned. The founders of America should have just been honest and stated up front that they didn't consent to being governed by England. Thomas Jefferson created much confusion when he appealed to inalienable rights, endowed by a Creator, in the Declaration of Independence, and for this reason, many Christian fundamentalists claim that America was founded upon Christian principles. Thomas Jefferson did NOT believe in the Abrahamic Creator of the heavens and earth, but rather a deistic, impersonal, watchmaker Creator who created the universe and is now dead, or for all intents and purposes, might as well be dead because he apparently doesn't care about what happens in the world.

We should dispense with the whole idea of inherent rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. The people consent to being governed by their rulers in exchange for their rulers granting them the rights spelled out in the Constitution. It's a social contract between two consenting parties. My position has been, and always will be, that the people of the US do not speak for me. The rulers of America govern me without my consent, but I don't think that they really care, though, because I am a very small fish in a very big pond.

It seems to me, in the end, that the "people" in Western democracy, whichever way we define the term 'people", have done the same thing that the monarchs of old did when they claimed to have a divine right to rule, regardless of the consent of the people. In the case of Western democracy, it's the people who have claimed to have certain rights, regardless of the consent of those who govern them. A contract implies mutual consent between two parties, and in this case, it implies mutual consent between a king and his people, or a people and their government in a democracy. As long as human beings ASSUME that they have certain rights, regardless of what the other party says or does, then there will always be problems. It seems as though the West has merely substituted one form of arrogance for another. They have substituted the arrogance of the divine right of kings to rule with the arrogance of the "people" claiming to have certain inherent rights in a democracy.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
Human rights are given by human society. ALL rights are granted by human beings to each other --- including those that believers think have been given by God.

You are committing the fallacy of anthropomorphizing abstract entities. Societies and countries cannot say or do anything, only people within societies or countries.

Human rights are part of a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. Inherent rights are nonsense.

[NonContradiction]

If human beings have inherent rights, do animals, by extension, have inherent rights, also? If yes, then what are they, and how do you know? If no, then why not?

Some people here have argued that men and women are all human beings, and therefore, they should share the same rights and duties. I suppose that one could make an argument that human beings are animals, also; therefore, we should all share the same rights as animals.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Human rights are part of a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. Inherent rights are nonsense.

Agreed. Hence, there is no inherent duty for women to be covered, and no inherent right for a man to demand sex from his wife.

[NonContradiction]

NC: Human rights are part of a social contract between the rulers and the ruled. Inherent rights are nonsense.

Contracycle:
Agreed. Hence, there is no inherent duty for women to be covered, and no inherent right for a man to demand sex from his wife.

I never argued that there was an inherent duty or right.

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by contracycle
Yes. A "right" is just something we, as a society, decide to do. Many individuals have had tights that did NOT have commensurate responsibilities - such as a kings right to the deer in a forest.



The langauage or "rights" is the lanbguage of sophistry, and the term means far too many things to too many people to be very useful, IMO.

But you disputed that fact that rights are linked with duties. How people perceive rights is irrelevant.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by meritocrat
But you disputed that fact that rights are linked with duties. How people perceive rights is irrelevant.

Not really. As something that exists wholly in the mind, individual perception is all there is.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I never argued that there was an inherent duty or right.

In which case, a western liberal philosophy that seeks to implement this voiluntarism should pose you no problems.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by contracycle
Not really. As something that exists wholly in the mind, individual perception is all there is.

Rights don't exist wholly in the mind once there is an agreement between the two parties. If you go into a court of law with something wholly in your mind, then I don't think that you are going to get too far. On the other hand, if you go into a court of law with an agreement, in writing, spelling out your rights that the other party granted you, then that is a different story. Once an agreement has been reached between the two parties, then we are not talking about something which is nothing more than an individual perception.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by contracycle
In which case, a western liberal philosophy that seeks to implement this voiluntarism should pose you no problems.

If people want to enter into secular agreements with their rulers, then that is their business. If their leaders deceive them, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. I choose not to enter into such agreements.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If people want to enter into secular agreements with their rulers, then that is their business. If their leaders deceive them, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. I choose not to enter into such agreements.

Excellent. So you would agree, then, that any individual woman who wished not to cover her head should have every freedom to do so anywhere in the world she may be. This may in fact be against local law, but that is merely a relationship of force between the ruled and the rulers, and not a principled objection to everyones capacity to go about uncovered. Right?

[NonContradiction]

NC: If people want to enter into secular agreements with their rulers, then that is their business. If their leaders deceive them, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. I choose not to enter into such agreements.

Contracycle:
Excellent. So you would agree, then, that any individual woman who wished not to cover her head should have every freedom to do so anywhere in the world she may be.

I never said that.

[NonContradiction]

Many people here have argued that since women are human beings, then they should have the same rights as men do. It seems to me that the same argument could be made for animals. Since human beings are animals, then all animals should have the same rights as human beings. I am not suggesting that women should be compared to animals, but I am pointing out that the same logic of the liberals could be used to make a case for animals having the same rights as human beings, which is absurd to me.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Many people here have argued that since women are human beings, then they should have the same rights as men do.

Yes, they certainly have.

It seems to me that the same argument could be made for animals.

How so? How is the argument that men and women should share equal rights the same as an argument in favour of equal rights between human beings and other animals? Could you explain further, please?

[Singerian]

Originally posted by Luiseach
How is the argument that men and women should share equal rights the same as an argument in favour of equal rights between human beings and other animals? NonContradiction's particular example of an argument for equal rights among genders, which is essentially "both are part of x arbitrary immidiately broader category," could be applied to give animals equal rights to humans.

Whatever the "reasoning" behind these arbitrary distinctions, the catalyst is acknowledgement that x new group has interests.

As animals, like women, like men, have interests, there is no doubt in my mind that either a) animals will one day enjoy the same rights as humans or b) the ethics of rights will sooner be replaced by a more sensible kind.