View Single Post
  #8  
Old 10-01-2010, 11:35 AM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Another thing that needs to be pointed out is this: I have basically two points against this, first off race and gender arent the same thing. Racial differences and Gender-based differences are in two leagues, so generalising between the two doesnt give the proper picture here. Secondly, any non-liberalistic philosophy doesnt necessarily imply that one gender (lets talk only about the gender issue here because you and I both agree that racial differences arent, well, differences) needs to have "leverage" above the other. It can even be so that both the genders are equal, meaning they perform their proper roles and enjoy their proper rights (not identical roles and identical rights, necessarily).I personally do not think neither equality nor superiority or inferiority even applies here, since men and women are different, therefore they have different roles and different rights. A man is not as motherly as a woman, this doesnt mean the man is inferior. Similarly just because in certain cases (clothing for instance) the rights of both the genders arent identical, doesnt mean anyone is inferioror or superior. Just that they are different and therefore have different laws and rules attached to them.
I know race and gender aren’t the same thing, but in the context of rights, equal opportunity, and diversity, they apply in the same scenarios, hence what I was referring to.

Also, I highly disagree with your generalist statements about men and women, there are always exceptions, and there are always individuals that do not want to be conformed into society-selected roles on an individual level. The alternative to being able to choose one’s role in society is being born into it, and not having the choice. In the end, what western culture values more is the freedom of choice as opposed to accepting the dictation and regulation of roles in society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
you could refer here for starters. http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/Liberalism1.0.pdf
Sorry, but that essay is loaded with bias, and doesn’t go very far besides bashing liberalism without taking a necessary objective viewpoint that analyzes both sides and weighs the advantages and disadvantages of each in the appropriate contexts. Instead, it takes its references and uses them out of context to come to conclusions that may not be necessarily true by linking suggested cause and effect relationships that may not even be applicable within the same context. This essay refuses to examine the advantages of liberalism, and it wrongly suggests the implementation of Islamic law is a perfect solution when it has its own faults as well. I could easily find an essay that makes the exact same mistake in reverse with regards to these viewpoints, but in the end, no reliable conclusion would be reached.

In truth, the reality of the situation is that neither system is perfect. The ideal situation is to find the system that is compatible with the most amount of people within a society and what those people find ideal within the culture they live in. However, the implication that Islamic law is superior to liberalism has its own series of flaws as well. I can go into a long and lengthy debate as to why Liberalism is far superior from a business and economic standpoint and is evident with regards to western society, but again, that’s a whole other debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Id like to stress that we need to point fingers at all the guilty parties though. So-called Islaamic terrorism is evil, no second doubt about that. But so is the imperialist Foreign Policy USA has adopted, if not more.
More evil than killing thousands of innocent people? Not by a long shot. US intervention made a beneficial difference in many various points in history and in recent years, such as the removal of dictator Saddam Hussein from power and to hold him accountable for his heinous crimes against humanity. To assume US foreign policy it is entirely evil without examining specific cases in objection makes your point inconclusive. Islamic extremism is just one example among many possibilities how fanatical thinking can take something out of context and direct it toward accomplishing a different series of intended objectives. In truth, this was the subject of debate, but then you turned around and made it a debate of entire political systems and western foreign policies. Yes, what this debate should be centered around is the separation of association between followers of the traditional Islamic faith, and the misguided beliefs of so-called “Islamic” extremists.

Also, what you have in your forum signature is downright silly. You did request this, did you not? Seems a little absurd to open up a very suggestive debate like this and not expect anyone to challenge it. Yes, not everyone shares your views, nor is willing to automatically covert to them upon being presented with your own personal testimony. This is the reality of debates conducted in an open forum. And if you attempt to bring these personal testimonies up with the suggestion that they’re superior to what the other side values, then yes, people will challenge them, thus resulting in these debates. Simply put, you don’t enter into a debate forum, raise a debate, and then express shock and objection to when counter arguments are presented. But to argue these kinds of points and then imply suggestive remarks regarding the community's demeanor upon receiving challenging resistance is absurd.
__________________