Quite ridiculous to be honest

[old.Tohtori]

Im asking what i asked before. (really, i have the patience. Just answer the question)

Would condemning it be the right thing to do?

For those who want to condemn it, yes.

For those who don't want to condemn it, no.

 

[Gorbachioo]

You would need to define what "right" is, and I think thats the point that toht is trying to make.

We can say it is "right" to condemn, "right" to intervene, "right" to tell someone their beliefs are rubbish. What I think toht is trying to say is that you need to either somehow prove it is right, else what more is it than just our opinion.

Its the difference between objective and subjective again. Objective: Earth's gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/s. Subjective: Their laws are wrong.

Objective stuff can be governed by external rules - such as physics, chemistry, mathematics etc... What governs the subjective stuff? Society? Our own moral system?

At the end of the day, objective stuff is true for all cases - the rules are absolute. Subjective things are not true for all cases. Sometimes they can masquerade as being true when all parties involved are in agreement.

Taking the case of the guy looking at other religious material - we live in a liberal society, where we generally believe everyone has the right to read, think and say what they want. Hence, we believe that the ruling on this guy is wrong. But you cannot pretend that theres some external law which makes it objectively wrong. Even morals aren't intrinsically objective.

I understand that. There is no universal right and wrong. But you cant use that as an argument if you're not willing to give that to everyone. Thats what im trying to point out with the janjaweed example.

We as Europeans have our own moral system. It condemns the murder of a young man who was educating himself and it condems men who murder their wives whose only offence is having been raped. You cant say that murdering those women is wrong but killing that guy is "their way".

 

[Gorbachioo]

For those who want to condemn it, yes.

For those who don't want to condemn it, no.

And thats why you're a coward.



Im ending this conversation now. Its going nowhere.

 

[Jeremiah]

We as Europeans have our own moral system. It condemns the murder of a young man who was educating himself and it condems men who murder their wives whose only offence is having been raped. You cant say that murdering those women is wrong but killing that guy is "their way".

Yes I agree with you - we can't be both active -"that is wrong"- and passive -"that is their way". Or at least, we can't be morally outraged, but tell ourselves we have no right to condemn since it is a different culture. We are either outraged or not, not both =)

Well, we can but then we are two sided - and we'll never be concrete in what we believe, because we'll always tell ourselves there is another side to the story. I don't know how anyone could live like that - unless its the "as long as it doesnt affect me, everything goes. I have my opinions but I believe them to be worthless outside myself" people =)

 

[old.Tohtori]

And thats why you're a coward.



Im ending this conversation now. Its going nowhere.

You're ending it, hah, right.

Well, your point evidently was to hange my mind about not cargin that much about certain issues and letting people and countries live as they live, and you failed(ofcourse).

It won't go anywhere when there's nowhere to go.

But i'm not a coward for saying "they can live as they live".

 

[Golena]

I understand that. There is no universal right and wrong.

You obviously don't understand that.

We as Europeans have our own moral system. It condemns the murder of a young man who was educating himself and it condems men who murder their wives whose only offence is having been raped. You cant say that murdering those women is wrong but killing that guy is "their way".

So what makes you think that our way is BETTER than their way? We have better weapons so our way is better?
Our system doesn't allow people to educate themselves in any way they choose, it allows us to educate ourselves in ways that are allowed.
I can't look at pictures of naked 12 year olds to educate myself what a 12 year old looks like without clothes.

Their society is based around a large and complex set of rules. Take away one or two of those rules and you'll potentially vastly change their culture.
Without understanding all the parts of how their culture works you can't have a decent opinion of if it's right or wrong. I very much doubt that more than 2% of the people on this forum have the knowledge to condem it or not any more than I have to discuss nuclear physics.

Without understanding why pictures of a naked 12 year old are bad. The history of child abuse that means the production of them hurts the child in question, then understanding that looking at them would be wrong would make no sense to me.
In order to condem the law you'd first need to explain why the law exists, what caused it to come about and what the effects of removing it would be. Since you've done none of these I assume you just don't know and are therefore ranting about something of which you have no real understanding. Welcome to the club of all the other outraged daily mail readers.

 

[Gorbachioo]

You obviously don't understand that.



So what makes you think that our way is BETTER than their way? We have better weapons so our way is better?
Our system doesn't allow people to educate themselves in any way they choose, it allows us to educate ourselves in ways that are allowed.
I can't look at pictures of naked 12 year olds to educate myself what a 12 year old looks like without clothes.

Their society is based around a large and complex set of rules. Take away one or two of those rules and you'll potentially vastly change their culture.
Without understanding all the parts of how their culture works you can't have a decent opinion of if it's right or wrong. I very much doubt that more than 2% of the people on this forum have the knowledge to condem it or not any more than I have to discuss nuclear physics.

Without understanding why pictures of a naked 12 year old are bad. The history of child abuse that means the production of them hurts the child in question, then understanding that looking at them would be wrong would make no sense to me.
In order to condem the law you'd first need to explain why the law exists, what caused it to come about and what the effects of removing it would be. Since you've done none of these I assume you just don't know and are therefore ranting about something of which you have no real understanding. Welcome to the club of all the other outraged daily mail readers.

Because our way is better. Its not flawless. But its better. Why is it better? Because more freedoms make happier people. I know you like to think that you're so intelligent because you keep playing the moral relativism card but you only think that way when it suits you. I'll use the same example as i used before with tohtori to prove my point: In Darfur Janjaweed soldiers rape women because they know that often their husbands will kill them for it because its shamefull for them to "share" their wives. Is this just their way and therefore we cant condemn that or could it be that its wrong?

And i would say that you can look at pictures of naked 12 year olds if the purpose of that is to educate yourself. When we were 12 the school doctor took a look inside our pants to see that everything was in order. How could she have done that if she had never seen a 12 year olds willy?

I dont know why this law was implemented but since i cant think of a single reason that isnt about religious oppression i'll assume that it is about just that. Prove me wrong.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Gorb, the problem with you is the lack of accepting that not all think like you. This is why you sound, exactly, like the kind of person who becomes a terrorist.

If you could you'd probably force some western laws on those "dumb and uneducated(direct quote i bleieve from you?)" people.

You have your way, your way alone, it's the right one, it's GODS WILL...get the point?

If you say there's no right way, or wrong way, yet proceed to say i'm wrong in saying "let them live in my opinion", then...well....if you were on this side of the fence, you'd judge yourself.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Gorb, the problem with you is the lack of accepting that not all think like you. This is why you sound, exactly, like the kind of person who becomes a terrorist.

If you could you'd probably force some western laws on those "dumb and uneducated(direct quote i bleieve from you?)" people.

You have your way, your way alone, it's the right one, it's GODS WILL...get the point?

If you say there's no right way, or wrong way, yet proceed to say i'm wrong in saying "let them live in my opinion", then...well....if you were on this side of the fence, you'd judge yourself.

But its not the same thing. The islamic way is forcing a very specific way of life on people. The western way is allowing people to do whatever they want.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But its not the same thing. The islamic way is forcing a very specific way of life on people. The western way is allowing people to do whatever they want.

Really?

First point: Laws. Limit pretty much what we can and can't do.
Second: Need for money.
Third: Isn't what you're suggesting, changing their ways, NOT allowing to do whatever they want.

 

[tris-]

The western way is allowing people to do whatever they want.

the last time i checked it was illegal to smoke pot.
the western way is actually based on laws and the laws are based on what the general populas deems as 'immoral'.
that ofcourse is based around religion.

 

[Azurus]

Western society is based on freedom TO.

Islamic countries are based on a freedom FROM.

 

[noblok]

Because our way is better. Its not flawless. But its better. Why is it better? Because more freedoms make happier people.

That's a very debatable point.

1. Is happiness the right way to measure how good an ethical system is? That would make Brave New World a moral ideal.

2. Do more freedoms actually lead to more happiness? It also comes with more stress, more insecurity, etc

3. Not all freedoms can be ranked on a single scale.

 

[Gorbachioo]

the last time i checked it was illegal to smoke pot.
the western way is actually based on laws and the laws are based on what the general populas deems as 'immoral'.
that ofcourse is based around religion.

There can never be a truly "free" society in that sense. There will always be some rules. Our society is far from being flawless but it gives us more freedom than an islamic society would. And therefore, in my opinion, it is better.

Now i do realise that there are people who are probably better off when they are told exactly what to do, but im not one of those people so thats why i prefer freedom.

 

[tris-]

more freedom or different types of freedoms?

 

[Gorbachioo]

That's a very debatable point.

1. Is happiness the right way to measure how good an ethical system is? That would make Brave New World a moral ideal.

2. Do more freedoms actually lead to more happiness? It also comes with more stress, more insecurity, etc

3. Not all freedoms can be ranked on a single scale.

1. The best one i can think of right now. What do you suggest?

2. What you're saying there is that people cant decide whats best for themselves. I agree that thats the case sometimes. But more often than not it isnt.

 

[Gorbachioo]

more freedom or different types of freedoms?

Im not sure what you mean by this. ;[

 

[tris-]

in how many different ways are they free to do something
and how many different ways are we free to do something?

we could well have the same amount of freedom, just in other forms.

 

[noblok]

1. The best one i can think of right now. What do you suggest?

2. What you're saying there is that people cant decide whats best for themselves. I agree that thats the case sometimes. But more often than not it isnt.

1. Probably something along the lines of egality and human dignity. What these concepts imply is a subject of discussion though and this discussion will always be coloured by a cultural bias. I think this is inevitable though and not such a bad thing. One fundamental value doesn't necessarily have to be expressed in one way only. How it's best expressed is dependant on the cultural context. You may disagree with this, but 'Brave New World' as well as a lot of other anti-utilitarian arguments should show you that happiness is no good way to measure how good an ethical system is either.

2. Not quite. What I'm saying is true regardless of whether people are able to decide what's best for them. The more freedom, the more people suffer from responsibility, insecurity (they're less supported by institutions) and stress (because somehow to a lot of people the possibility to do a lot of different things seems to imply you "haven't lived" unless you've done at least most of them). Maybe this means they'll end up less happy after all.

 

[chipper]

not read all this missed last few pages cos it seemed to be covering whats already been said

obviously i disagree with whats happened and i condemn it and i think the world needs to condemn it too, saying its there law is simply a way of saying i dont giv a fuck cos its not happening in my country

lets not forget the fundamental truth here someone has been murdered u can say executed its the same thing.

yes they say we are the infidels and we should all die horrible deaths
we say they need to basically grow up and realise we arent in the 800's any longer

given the choice which statement would you stand behind?

i know everyone here is appaled by it but saying its their law respect it is simply something i cant comprehend


final question for everyone gordon brown introduces a new law it is now a capital offence to play football (im choosing something large scale here because education is large scale too) how many of you would say ok we wont play football anymore and how many of you would like me go fuck you brown vote the **** out and get the law recinded can you imagine the riots?

this student is a true martyr hopefully islam will wake up to this insanity and start questioning their laws

 

[Gorbachioo]

in how many different ways are they free to do something
and how many different ways are we free to do something?

we could well have the same amount of freedom, just in other forms.

We'll be discussing this in 2020 if we start listing all the things that we are allowed to do and what they are.

Are you telling me that muslims (and by muslims i dont mean ALL muslims, i mean the stereotypical arab muslim, please dont start talking about some englightened muslim sub cult. Im begging you, all of you!) have more freedoms than we do?

 

[Gorbachioo]

1. Probably something along the lines of egality and human dignity. What these concepts imply is a subject of discussion though and this discussion will always be coloured by a cultural bias. I think this is inevitable though and not such a bad thing. One fundamental value doesn't necessarily have to be expressed in one way only. How it's best expressed is dependant on the cultural context. You may disagree with this, but 'Brave New World' as well as a lot of other anti-utilitarian arguments should show you that happiness is no good way to measure how good an ethical system is either.

2. Not quite. What I'm saying is true regardless of whether people are able to decide what's best for them. The more freedom, the more people suffer from responsibility, insecurity (they're less supported by institutions) and stress (because somehow to a lot of people the possibility to do a lot of different things seems to imply you "haven't lived" unless you've done at least most of them). Maybe this means they'll end up less happy after all.

1. Doesnt that depend on what the goal is? If the goal is to make people happy then the moral values should aim for that. If the goal is to create, say, a strong country then work ethics, patriotism and such are what you need.

2. True. But i didnt say its perfect. The other option is expecting people to be something that they might or might not be. And if they are not, then it makes their life shit. Still like my way better.

 

[tris-]

We'll be discussing this in 2020 if we start listing all the things that we are allowed to do and what they are.

Are you telling me that muslims (and by muslims i dont mean ALL muslims, i mean the stereotypical arab muslim, please dont start talking about some englightened muslim sub cult. Im begging you, all of you!) have more freedoms than we do?

im saying we probably have equal amounts of freedom, but the things we are free to do are different.
and the freedom we do have is probably rated differently between you and a muslim.

youre not a muslim for one thing, and so you have a bias towards western law. and therefore you cannot be of the mind that a muslim is and so you cannot subjectively rate the freeom a muslim has.

really, how are you rating how much freedom someone has? something that i can freely do, by a muslims standards, might not be all that great anyway. meaning they arnt bothered about being able to do it or not. im allowed to earn interest on my money, i think thats cool. a muslim on the otherhand is not allowed to do that and it could well be something a muslim doesnt give a shit about.

 

[noblok]

1. Doesnt that depend on what the goal is? If the goal is to make people happy then the moral values should aim for that. If the goal is to create, say, a strong country then work ethics, patriotism and such are what you need.

Humm. I don't see ethics as a means to a goal. I rather see it as an expression of moral intuitions (e.g. human dignity). I also don't think happiness is the ultimate goal for human beings, unless perhaps you take the ancient concept of eudaimonia (but I know too little of ancient philosophy to fairly judge that).

2. True. But i didnt say its perfect. The other option is expecting people to be something that they might or might not be. And if they are not, then it makes their life shit. Still like my way better.

You may just like this better because you're born in a Western country in this day and age though. I have serious doubts whether the average happiness has really increased since e.g. medieval times. Even if you just take the Western world.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't think there is a pinnacle of civilization that we can realistic hope to achieve, even for the simple fact that the definition of "perfect" will never be 100% applicable.

I think I'd agree that we seem to be no more happier despite several advances in things that should make us happy - like longer lifespans, ever more complex entertainment, further reaching social reforms. Its like an unreachable ambition that will always elude us.

I do however think that, in the absence of absolutes, its ok to hold onto our own belief systems and believe that "our way is best" in the majority of cases. And even to the extent that we can comment on other belief systems, as long as we are grounded in reason =)

 

[old.Tohtori]

He're s a question for Gorb, since you so blatantly ignore all points except yours;

If watching teletubbies was punishable by death, and you really liked teletubbies, would you watch it?

Either or, this guy most likely knew what he was doing and how frowned upon it is, yet proceeded to do so.

If it's illegal, you break the law, you face the law.

 

[Gorbachioo]

He're s a question for Gorb, since you so blatantly ignore all points except yours;

If watching teletubbies was punishable by death, and you really liked teletubbies, would you watch it?

Either or, this guy most likely knew what he was doing and how frowned upon it is, yet proceeded to do so.

If it's illegal, you break the law, you face the law.

We discussed this at the beginning of this conversation. Im not going to again. Read what i said.

 

[tris-]

when you fail to see and accept opposing views there is really no point discussing it, is there?

youre not being critical at all.

 

[Gorbachioo]

im saying we probably have equal amounts of freedom, but the things we are free to do are different.
and the freedom we do have is probably rated differently between you and a muslim.

youre not a muslim for one thing, and so you have a bias towards western law. and therefore you cannot be of the mind that a muslim is and so you cannot subjectively rate the freeom a muslim has.

really, how are you rating how much freedom someone has? something that i can freely do, by a muslims standards, might not be all that great anyway. meaning they arnt bothered about being able to do it or not. im allowed to earn interest on my money, i think thats cool. a muslim on the otherhand is not allowed to do that and it could well be something a muslim doesnt give a shit about.

I dont think we do. Muslims are expected to live their lives in a very specific way but in the west we dont respect those expectations anymore.

I dont have a bias towars western law. Im very much able to think for myself. If the muslim law was the one of the two that allowed me to stick my willy wherever i wanted to then i would support it. Its not. (im not gay btw )

I would think there are a number of gay people in the muslim world who would love to be who they are, but they cant because they hate getting stoned to death.

 

[tris-]

without being a muslim and being born into a muslim country, how do you know what a muslim thinks?
of course your bias is towards our law, you know everything about it for one thing and probably not as much about muslim law. youre comparing all of one thing to half of another.

i dont claim to know anything about muslim law. but its clear that we will all percieve freedom in different ways and being able to do one thing might be 100x more important than being able to do another. promiscuity as you describe it above may not be important to a muslim growing up in a muslim country. as for homosexuals, i dont know any muslims never mind gay muslims. so i have no idea what they think.