View Single Post
Old 10-08-2010, 10:43 AM
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah's Avatar
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah Offline
Amateur Trainer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 61
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Yes, but in a liberal democratic society these laws are all agreed to by a majority of those subjected to them. In any other kind of society this is not the case.
Actually we were talking about affirming the fact that restrictions in a society are sensible (vs. unrestricted freedom). You brought up the issue of justifying the authority who puts this restrictions, and not the facts that restrictions exist. Thats been agreed upon as it appears, and the justification of the authority concerned here is kind of beside the issue. Now we’ve got some kind of a democracy vs. Islaamic Authority debate in our hands. Anyhow, my response to this is I do not believe Democracy intrinsically is the best premise on which to base these laws. Conceptually Democracy comes with some intrinsic fallacies. Now you might bring up the old argument and say that its better than its polar opposite, and theres a lot of polar opposites of democracy, but still it is far from being the best or perfect system out there. I say this because of several reasons, for instance, the idea that laws should be changeable to evolve for the better works both ways, laws can evolve for the worse too. Theres no Inherent unquestionable Criteria there. People might not always know what is best for them. Another very big problem with Democracy is the fact the democratic elections are very easily corrupted. Most of the time they become popularity contests, and consequently the people are manipulated towards a certain end.

On the other hand, conceptually Id say the authority Islaam provides is far more stable. Democracy assumes that we begin with an imperfect state, and the laws would keep changing for the better, and aim for a non-existing perfection (no sarcasm implied here. Democrats do believe that we can only keep improving but never reach the perfection). In the case of Islaam, the Laws come from an Omniscient and Omnipotent source, and thus is already believed to be the most perfect system practically Possible. So if we are talking about authority, the Islaamic Source is a lot more, in fact the most, Coherent one Possible. Now I completely understand that you do not believe in this, but for your Lawmaking authority (democracy) to be more coherent than the Islaamic authority, you will need to disprove Islaam as a Divine religion. Until you can do that, you need to give it the just amount of benefit of doubt.
Oh, no one is denying that there are physical and psychological differences between men and women. Just like there are physical and/or psychological differences between able bodied people and the mentally and physically disabled. This does not mean that we make different laws for those people. Why? Because it's not something that a person can control. They are not the cause of those differences. And if it's not their fault, then why should they be punished for it by being treated differently? They shouldn't. They are equal to us, because they have not made choices which make them lesser to the rest of us.
I have several points against this:

First, your analogy is flawed. You are assuming that we consider women to be like disabled human being, which is not true at all. The basic premise on which the Islaamic Gender-specific laws are set is the fact that men and women are different, none is better or worse than the other. So therefore they have different roles to play.

Second, Your justification
Because it's not something that a person can control.
doesnt seem like a coherent justification to me at all. Since they had no choice in the matter the plain cannot be leveled? Since they had no choice in the matter their disabilities cannot be bridged by positive discrimination? And how can you claim it is "right" to not try and make things easier for those who –intrinsically- have it harder?

Thirdly, this rhetoric question
then why should they be punished for it by being treated differently?
Isnt very sensible either. You are assuming that being treated differently is an intrinsic punishment, which is very debatable, if not false. Being treated differently can imply making things easier for both the parties as well.

Unfortunately, you fail to take into account the reason we treat the "exceptional," as you put it, as general. It's because it's become general. It's not unusual for a father to stay at home with the kids while the mother works. It's not unusual for women to dominate in fields men normally take up. Hell, when my step-sister decided she was going to be a mechanic nobody batted an eye. And if I may point out, women have been Presidents and Prime Ministers all across Europe. Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful people in the American government and immediately behind the Vice President in line for the Presidency, is a woman. And while she is the first female Speaker of the House, no one views it as unusual. We don't treat it as exceptional because to us it's not an exception, it's just as much the norm.
Again, I disagree with your justification here:
Unfortunately, you fail to take into account the reason we treat the "exceptional," as you put it, as general. It's because it's become general.
Even if in current society the odd ones out would become the norm, that still doesn't change that there are indeed intrinsic differences. And that still doesn't change that in a just system, the laws are made to fit the exceptional characteristics of each gender. Another important thing is you are saying that just because we are able to “make do” with the way things are, implies that this is as good as the society gets. Which however is debatable. For starters, just because a woman produces, economically, as much as the man, doesnt take away the fact that generally speaking, she might not be the best one for doing this, and the fact that she is playing the role which would generally be bestowed upon the man, her original role in the society as a woman is being neglected. So this justification you put, not regarding the fact that differences exist between men and women, is flawed. Just because we can make do, doesnt imply we should make do!

In the case of the policy-based argument you brought, I think my argument in the above para addresses it. Regardless a woman does good or bad, I argue that a man is generally more well-equipped in playing, well, a man’s role.

Oh yes, and since he claims that they're valid then clearly they are. -_- Of course he believes they're valid, he's arguing for them. That doesn't mean he's right.
Lol, Im not saying that. Neo Pikachu above claimed that the flaws in liberalistic society (High crime rate, moral degression etc) arent a result of the Liberalistic system. The author, and consequently, I, argue that in fact the cause and effect relationship between them are valid, because of the fact the very social structure is liberalistic, and by maximizing individual freedom to such great (and thus questionable!) heights, crimes are being facilitated, directly or indirectly. Read the arguments he brought when he questioned the premise of individualism. I think those are the best arguments of his.
I'm sorry, then what would you characterize every country in the Middle East other than Israel as?
Cocktails of liberalistic, conservative and Islaamic society is present there. There is no country on the face of this earth which is implementing proper Islaam, the Scholars of Islaam are unanimous on this. To start with there is no such thing as a “Kingdom” in an Islamic State, so the trouble starts with the very constitution. The last trace of the Islaamic Caliphate diusappeared from the face of Turkey (And hence the face of this earth) on the year 1924, when Mustafa Kamaal Ataturk took over and constituted a liberal democratic adminstrative system there.

They are intrinsically equal because any differences between the two are factors of birth, in addition to the fact that both are equally capable of exactly the same things, excluding the capability to bear and nurse children.
Answered above. First, the fact that the differences are uncontrollable doesnt mean they arent differences. Second, while we can make do with the exceptions being the norm, this doesnt imply that this is the best stance we can take, nor does it take away the fact that men and women are better equipped for different things.

a) it's an assertion in general and a counter to your argument against liberalism, making it an argument in and of itself
The burden of proof lies on you to prove that the maximization of individualistic rights and the assumption that the two genders are intrinsically equal is the best way forward. I gave my arguments against this, and to disprove my case you need arguments, not assertions. Thats like you taking the fact that the causal relations between crime and liberations and valid, literally. (as happened above) You pointed out that its just an assertion. same applies here.

b) in a debate you're expected to respond to assertions just as much as arguments.
I responded to this notion in general in this post in particular, as well as the previous ones. But on that point, refuting an argument means addressing the premise its based on. An assertion, at least this one, isnt based on a premise. The only suggested premise is an appeal to authority. Thats not an argument any more than a logical fallacy.
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal