Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah
This is turning out to be quite an interesting discussion.
Now the flaw that comes to mind once I look at this paragrap and those following it about liberalism is: you are considering the polar opposite of liberalism and proving it wrong from conceptual basis, and concluding from that premise that liberalism should be our way forward. Like you said meaning you are saying liberalism is justified just because its polar opposite is not. However Im not a proponent of extreme conservatism, neither have I placed any philosophical paradigm which would subsitute liberalism (at least not yet).
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.
And just who gets to decide those "different laws and rules"? Let us assume for an instant that those laws are made by people, and thus, fallible. Thus it is impossible to establish true "fairness" between the genders while having different laws. As the US Supreme Court said in Brown vs Board of Education, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal". As Khajmer said, there are certainly specific cases in which men can be feminine and women can be masculine. A liberal society accounts for those special cases and allows them to pursue their own desires. A conservative society, basing laws on the general rather than the possible, does not. In the end, liberal societies tend to be more productive and more open to change and innovation than conservative societies. Now, you might not believe that productiveness and innovation are good things, but if the difference between what we believe is "good" for the world is that large, there is very little to debate about.
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.
Imperialist? =) Boi, you must have never studied real imperialism. Everyone hates the US for exercising our power, but when you compare us to past world powers (i.e USSR, Britain, Spain, going all the way back to the Roman Empire) we are extremely nice.
I don't think I have to prove that the US has yet to invade another country, set up massive numbers of American settlements, and enslave and murder the local people.