User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 79

  1. #61
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Using it with caution would be better.

    Even if you manage to change society in such a way that it becomes in your eyes perfect there will be people out there who will be trying to change it to their version of perfect. Why is your version better?
    You think its out of line to label as extremist people who think that someone who changes their religion should be put to death? I disagree.

    There are numerous philosphical justifications (utilitarianism, natural rights, etc.), some of which have already been touched upon in this thread and most of which I'm sure you are aware of. If you're actually ignorant on the subject, go read some J.S. Mill and world history detailing the consequences of religious conflict justified on the basis of intolerant dogmatic interpretations that you seem to have no problem with. Incidentally, not advocating the death of apostates is not even remotely close to the pursuit of a 'perfect' society, its a minimalist threshold that makes a tolerable society possible.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You think its out of line to label as extremist people who think that someone who changes their religion should be put to death? I disagree.

    There are numerous philosphical justifications (utilitarianism, natural rights, etc.), some of which have already been touched upon in this thread and most of which I'm sure you are aware of. If you're actually ignorant on the subject, go read some J.S. Mill and world history detailing the consequences of religious conflict justified on the basis of intolerant dogmatic interpretations that you seem to have no problem with. Incidentally, not advocating the death of apostates is not even remotely close to the pursuit of a 'perfect' society, its a minimalist threshold that makes a tolerable society possible.
    I dont hold with describing it as a matter extremism, it is political though.

    Religious authority and laws should only apply to believers, those who believe it should apply to believers and non-believers alike are essentially taking a political stance.

    History abounds with examples of politicalised religion and the western world has had phases of it too, first politicalised religious factions proper like the temporally powerful Popes and their Kingly and Princely protestant rivals, then the modern totalitarians.

    I've absolutely no problem with extremism provided that it involves an individual being extreme themselves, over their self the individual is sovereign, but beyond that I do have a problem and I actually think that taking it beyond that IS apostate behaviour.

    A phony obedience, observance and feigned belief is no substitute for the real thing, a true believer should know that and no conversion or true belief can be compelled. So approaching the question from a position of faith proper considering political means to achieve a change of heart wouldnt be contemplated.

    The Islamic believers who would compell others or their own communities to a particular way of life through violence have strong politics but weak faith.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Using it with caution would be better.

    Even if you manage to change society in such a way that it becomes in your eyes perfect there will be people out there who will be trying to change it to their version of perfect. Why is your version better?
    Because my version ALLOWS people to pursue their version of perfect, whatever way they define it, provided it does not involve persecuting others?

    The version of perfection which is on offer by political islam proffers an exclusive version of perfection from which no one is permitted to err or dissent.

    Its ridiculous to inject moral relativism into a thread on political islam, in effect you are either suggesting it is superior to secular, nominally christian heritage culture or you simply do not get the mindset at all. Which is it?

  4. #64
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    You think its out of line to label as extremist people who think that someone who changes their religion should be put to death?
    No. Infact I think it's quite undertandable. I do recognize however that this is what I think. I personally wouldn't label it "extremist" without first qualifying the term in some manner. You presented it in what I thought was a "without qualification" manner which led me to assume that perhaps you thought that it didn't need qualifying, that you thought it's extremism was objective universal truth.

    The tone of my first post was supposed to be more along the lines of "People are screwed up, always have been, always will be". It probably wasn't communicated as well as I would have liked, which is my fault...

    There are numerous philosphical justifications....

    Justifications? Do you contend that their extremism is objective truth? Or is this just your opinion? If you recognize this as just opinion then I'm just very apathetic towards opinions in general. You can fight to get your opinion more widely accepted but there will always be people out there fighting against this. Fighting so hard for something you don't even know as objective truth is not worth it. You probably won't succeed, and even if you do, what did you accomplish? All you did was manage to get people to think like you and seeing as you don't know whether what you think is actually true, why would you do that? It's seems like a very irresponsible thing to do. But this is all my opinion, if you think the fight is worth it all I can say is good luck. You don't have to worry about "converting" me, I already think killing people based on religion is insane. Actually religion in general is insane...

  5. #65
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Because my version ALLOWS people to pursue their version of perfect, whatever way they define it, provided it does not involve persecuting others?
    So you contend that this is universal truth:
    For a "perfect world" to exist it would have to have this property:
    ..It would have to allow "people to pursue their version of perfect, whatever way they define it, provided it does not involve persecuting others"

    I don't think this is absolute truth. I think it's a good sentiment. In my perfect world I think I would include this. I think it might even be practically workable. But I have never been able to prove it as universally true. Perhaps you could (and save me the thinking).

    If you are able to prove it as universally true then I am wrong. However, if you come to my way of thinking you can see how you're just trying to change the world in a way that you think is closer to your version of "perfect", can't you? In that case, fundamentally, what makes you any different than these extremists?

  6. #66
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    I personally wouldn't label it "extremist" without first qualifying the term in some manner

    You can fight to get your opinion more widely accepted but there will always be people out there fighting against this. Fighting so hard for something you don't even know as objective truth is not worth it.
    1.) Then you must avoid declarative statements on socio-political matters altogether; constantly qualifying statements like that is much too unwieldy and effectively grants equivalence between this issue and, say, advocating the teaching of creationism in public schools. ,

    2.) As I implied above, there is no such thing as a wholly objective socio-political issue, just issues that are either demonstrated to have utilitarian consequences or are consistent with first principles that one chooses to accept as true; you have essentially just stated that no principle or goal is worth pursuing, much less attaining.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    So you contend that this is universal truth:
    For a "perfect world" to exist it would have to have this property:
    ..It would have to allow "people to pursue their version of perfect, whatever way they define it, provided it does not involve persecuting others"

    I don't think this is absolute truth. I think it's a good sentiment. In my perfect world I think I would include this. I think it might even be practically workable. But I have never been able to prove it as universally true. Perhaps you could (and save me the thinking).

    If you are able to prove it as universally true then I am wrong. However, if you come to my way of thinking you can see how you're just trying to change the world in a way that you think is closer to your version of "perfect", can't you? In that case, fundamentally, what makes you any different than these extremists?
    I'm unsure about how you are defining universally true so I'll not be able to provide an answer let alone a satisfactory one until you do so.

    I cant accept your definition of permitting freedom to pursue perfection whatever or however that itself is defined as one "vision" among rivals, of which the "extremists" have their own alternative vision, as permitting freedom itself actually permits the "extremists" alternative, with the single provision of doing no harm to others, whereas the "extremist" vision precludes all others. It is not a straight forward choice between morally equivalent, equally valid alternatives.

    I hate to use consumerist analogies but for the sake of simplicity it is not toffees vs. caramel creams, its any sweet whatsoever vs. no sweets ever, do you see the essential difference in validity between a choice, which is what you are positing is being discussed, and the choice which is in reality not a choice at all?

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) Then you must avoid declarative statements on socio-political matters altogether; constantly qualifying statements like that is much too unwieldy and effectively grants equivalence between this issue and, say, advocating the teaching of creationism in public schools. ,

    2.) As I implied above, there is no such thing as a wholly objective socio-political issue, just issues that are either demonstrated to have utilitarian consequences or are consistent with first principles that one chooses to accept as true; you have essentially just stated that no principle or goal is worth pursuing, much less attaining.
    I would actually attest that there are certain truths which can be held to be self-evident or, if you like, objective.

    It appears to me to be totally and utterly nihilistic to suggest otherwise and that its all relative and rival doctrines anyway, in fact I seriously believe that this is a large, large part of what is wrong with the world today, people are unable to exercise the sorts of common sense or practical reason which where sign posts in the past because they're all amatuer philosophers prepared to deny the validity of anything or attest to the equal validity of everything, which amounts to the same thing ultimately, which makes aiming for objectivity itself, no matter how imperfect it may be in practice, something which isnt worth while.

    How the west got itself into such a comfortable, numb position while the rest of the world got ready to literally blow their asses up for seemingly high minded rhetoric they barely understand is beyond me and something's seriously awry with that.

  9. #69
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    2.) As I implied above, there is no such thing as a wholly objective socio-political issue, just issues that are either demonstrated to have utilitarian consequences or are consistent with first principles that one chooses to accept as true; you have essentially just stated that no principle or goal is worth pursuing, much less attaining.
    Essentially you're saying "I don't care what your goals or principals are, we're doing it my way." I don't understand the mindset that allows someone to do that when they know they aren't operating on truth rather just on their opinion. It seems like a very dangerous thing to do in my mind. I guess this comes down to "what role do subjective goals that affect other unwilling people have in the world?" My answer to that would be a very limited role/ only to be used when absolutely necessary.

    I don't see this as necessary.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Essentially you're saying "I don't care what your goals or principals are, we're doing it my way." I don't understand the mindset that allows someone to do that when they know they aren't operating on truth rather just on their opinion. It seems like a very dangerous thing to do in my mind. I guess this comes down to "what role do subjective goals that affect other unwilling people have in the world?" My answer to that would be a very limited role/ only to be used when absolutely necessary.

    I don't see this as necessary.
    I have trouble understanding your position, is english your first language?

    It appears to me that you believe there is an objective truth, if you are operating in truth then it is fine whatever compulsion or coercion that could mean for others, including those who do not believe that that same objective truth is objectively true.

    Yet if you frame social norms and rules in such a manner as to be impartial of individual goals or principles, besides certain fundamental prohibitions of coercion or compulsion apply to all individuals, including agents of the state, then this is:

    Essentially... "I don't care what your goals or principals are, we're doing it my way."
    I dont see how that can be so. Surely that impartial frame which applies equally to anyone and all irrespective of their goals or principles is as close to objective truth as is possible in a world which is imperfect and unlikely to become more perfect come what may.

Similar Threads

  1. music that reminds you of different types
    By Riva in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 10-24-2013, 04:59 PM
  2. Gallup research polls reveal high Muslim support for US, Obama, and moderate Islam
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-19-2010, 07:41 AM
  3. Post a song that fits one of your friends
    By paradox fox in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-18-2010, 05:34 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 02:20 AM
  5. [NT] really mean things you've said that you sort of regret a little maybe
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 04:03 PM

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