User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 115

  1. #61
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    The Enlightenment ended when when modern Australia was born?

    Perhaps you could address the following?

    Does Sacks have a point when he makes his distinctions.
    The dates 1688-1788 are special pleading.

    And I am pleading for my place in the world, which happens to be Oz, founded in 1788 after 100 years of peaceful aristocratic ascendency in Britain.

    So we are imbued with the values of the Enlightenment, aristocratic values, and peace.

    And these values have served us well for 222 years.

    And our moral and material success is highlighted by comparison with the USA, South America and Continental Europe.

    For we gained our independence and united a whole Continent without killing anyone. Quite unlike the USA who fought an eight year war of treachery against the Crown which they call the War of Independence, and then like all revolutionaries the USA went on to eat their children in their bloody Civil War.

    And unlike South America, we federated a whole Continent under the Common Law. And unlike South America we avoided dictatorship and economic and cultural dependence on the USA. Oz was lucky enough to escape the Munroe Doctrine of the USA.

    South America has a baroque system of law and government, while Oz has a gothic system of law and government. So South America tries to be centralized from general principles down to the particular. While Oz starts with the particulars and builds up to general principles. Our Common Law is perfect example of this gothic principle.

    And as you so well point out, we were not influenced by Continental anti-semitism.

    It's good to hear from you.

  2. #62
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    For the 3rd time...

    Does Sacks have a point when he makes his distinctions.
    Don't fuck me about with obtuse answers. A genuine heart-felt question:

    Is Sacks wrong? If so, why so?

    Let's get to the meat and potatoes.

  3. #63
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Have you ever lived in the US? Felt like a system of unofficial apartheid was in operation last I was there.
    Sure. Well documented in a series of books and articles besides experiences like Morgan's. Here's a series of articles on the subject looking at race in every day relations where racism is most prominent across a year:
    How Race Is Lived in America

    The metro areas in particular - Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles - all have segregated communities. These are not just happily separated by ethnicity but largely by socio-economic differences too.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the oppression of women in Islamic countries is entirely unrelated to the practice of that faith? That the notion of women as property and the sanctioning of violence against them in the Quran* is somehow irrelevant?

    *e.g. 4:34All fundamentalist religions seek to oppress women, it is the best means of exercising control over and subjugating them. How can one rise up against that which is not merely man's but God's will?

    Islam [/I]means Submission. The mandate is that all humans should be submissive (but some more submissive than others).
    I am suggesting that faith is always in the hands of those who interpret it and if you read good translations of the Quran, much of it is rather vague and open to interpretation Also like the bible, societies choose what part of their religious texts seems relevant as a reflection of the time in which they were written and which portions are "classic", should survive the test of time. The difference in interpretation makes all the difference for women in particular and this picking and choosing of passages -- Islamic societies that choose to highlight women covering their heads as a way to protect a woman's modesty alone instead of passages that deal with men practising common sense and respect would clearly influence the conversation, wouldn't it?

    There's a passage that reads, "there is no compulsion in religion", there's another that talks about the importance of people practising "reason" with faith. Religions themselves are functions of the times in which they evolved - the societal mores at the time and who played a dominant role in interpreting the religion since. If the relationship between Islam and women's domination was such a clean one and understood exactly the same way then why would we see quite a bit of variation in the way Islam and women's rights are practised in the Middle East itself. Why are women not allowed to have bank accounts in Saudi Arabia and not allowed to leave or be admitted to hospitals without male consent while there is no such compulsion in Iran. In spite of authoritarian rule, Iran has a relatively liberal society for women (in comparison to the rest). Women are only asked to wear headscarves and not full burkha, they work as journalists, photographers, run their own businesses...this is in the only country with a practising theocratic state?!?

    One of the reasons is that Shi'a islam sees the Quran as a live document - continuously open to interpretation. Hence the Guardian council. On the other hand, Sunni islam sees the 12th century interpretation as one that should be final. Quite a difference, right?

    So, why blame the religion when it could be misused by religious leaders/politicians/societal leaders invested in patriarchy. In the 1970s when the Communist party took over Afghanistan, many people in the cities welcomed the reforms for women including those in education and employment (national ads asking women to become bus drivers - in Afghanistan!).

    I'm saying:
    1. The consequences of religion - mono/poly whatever (honestly that doesn't seem to matter, Hinduism has pretty horrendous patriarchal ideas attached to a particular interpretation) are up to the people in power. Socio-economic conditions, the type of government and religious leaders matters more than the texts themselves.
    2. Secularism is important, I agree with Victor in a sense but disagree with the false notion of complete separation of church and state (lovely idea but where is this really true?). The important thing here would be to prevent any one religion from controlling the state and patriarchal ideas be separated from religion as most often, historically, they already existed in practice in these societies before the holy books were written.

  4. #64
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Just because some women choose be complicit in their own subjugation (after a process of indoctrination which begins in childhood) doesn't make it an enlightened choice, any more than "honour suicides" are an enlightened choice.
    Come on M, really? Comparing head scarves to honor killings? Small difference there in choosing a piece of clothing versus complicity in a killing?

    A piece of clothing is subjugation when is it forced either by societal norms or law. The issue is one of subjugation (control) and the lack of choice. Given the choice to dress the way we want, we all choose differently. Taking away that choice from women is not freedom it's continued control - now it's from a democratic government that's protecting their rights, not to choose for themselves though. The headscarf for many first generation Muslim immigrants in Europe is one of identity - they would be complicit in their own subjugation if they were also choosing forced marriages and poor divorce laws. They're not. Let's give these smart, strong, educated women a little more agency over their own lives shall we?

    You realize honor killings are not specific to Islam right? Find a society with the same levels of education and socio-economic conditions that did not treat their women the same way. Patriarchy is not the same as religion even though religion has often been used as a shield to protect patriarchy.

    Yes, there are some women who are unfortunately complicit in their subjugation but the example I used was not of such women. Please. These are women (there are several groups in France, Turkey of women whose families were shocked and hurt by their decision to wear these scarves because it was so not modern!) They are women for whom it was an expression of feminist (their words) and religious identity, a matter of choice. The choice they weren't granted when they were told they had to wear scarves and the one they weren't granted in being told they absolutely cannot wear them in public places.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post

    "Fundamentalist" was lazy. I will qualify with monotheistic, i.e. patriarchal.
    Religions are not fundamentalist - their practitioners are. Religions and their texts do not ask for literal translations. That defines fundamentalist groups in any religion. Calling a religion fundamentalist implies all its followers believe in a literal interpretation - not true in theory and practice.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    You realize honor killings are not specific to Islam right?
    And, there's many other ridiculous things that's not particular only to Islam.

    Suicide attacks, for example.

    The Bible's accolades of the heroic Samson dying for the righteous cause against the Phillistines.

    Judges, 16:30: "Let me die with the Phillistines." (and down came the pillars)

    And....not always explicitly associated with religion, either.

    * Kamikaze Samurai Warriors
    * Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - responsible for the famous assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by a female suicide bomber

    Hardly ever are such things due to some compulsion to adhere to some pure religious ideologies as it is about using the vehicle of religion [open to interpretation] or tribe mentality (broadly speaking), to propagate social and/or political agenda.

  6. #66
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The dates 1688-1788 are special pleading.
    Anyone who thinks the 18th C was a time of special peace and happiness in England needs to read books like: Amazon.com: Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England (9780394730851): E. P. Thompson, Douglas Hay, Peter Linebaugh, John G. Rule, Cal Winslow: Books

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And I am pleading for my place in the world, which happens to be Oz, founded in 1788 after 100 years of peaceful aristocratic ascendency in Britain...
    Jacobite Rising 1688 to 1746 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Battle of Culloden 1745 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  7. #67
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Nice!

    However, Victor creams his pants for the Enlightenment of the West that separated the "savages" from the reasonably civilized. They can do no wrong. :rolli:

    100 bucks says he's gonna "skillfully" ignore responding to this directly through his amazing skill of obscure rhetoric.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    100 bucks says he's gonna "skillfully" ignore responding to this directly through his amazing skill of obscure rhetoric.
    Just because Victor's rhetoric is obscure to you, doesn't mean it's obscure to others.
    Try harder, Q.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Just because Victor's rhetoric is obscure to you, doesn't mean it's obscure to others.
    Try harder, Q.
    It is obscure when he takes one little thought on a tangent without addressing the main points asked by the responder. And, I never challenged that it was obscure to others; stop twisting my points just to troll me.

    Try harder at comprehension and understanding the etiquette of dialogue, Jaguar.

  10. #70
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Exactly. The period was characterised by 2 Jacobite rebellions and, more significantly, a reasonably well-grounded fear of a French invasion.

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. My blog and the ideological course of culture... to be elaborated on in the new year
    By Zangetshumody in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-09-2017, 08:41 AM
  3. MBTI and the Anti-Enlightenment
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-25-2012, 04:31 AM
  4. [Te] The Message and the Messenger
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 09:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO