Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-30-2010, 04:44 PM
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah's Avatar
Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 61
Default Islaamic Extremists.

Hey people.

I am looking for public opinion on Islaamic Extremism/terrorism/fundamentalism/whateverism.

Why? Two reasons basically.

1. I am planning to write a paper on the topic.
2. This might give me the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions people might have about my religion (Islaam).

Thanx for your feedback ^_^
__________________
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal
  #2  
Old 09-30-2010, 06:24 PM
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.

The main underlying issue is that people typically associate the actions and demeanors of extremists with those that follow the Islamic religion out of peace and have no intention of causing physical or mental harm to others that may not follow the same religious practices.

What people need to focus on is that the extremists resemble a different, more destructive and oppressive version of the Islamic religion where walking into an open public area and blowing themselves up to kill as many “infidels” as they can is perceived as “glorious” with false promises of being granted paradise along with seventy-two virgins. The issue is only the violent negatives have been captured by the media, and because of that, people associate all of Islam with the destructive terrorism that goes on. What people need to realize is that Al Qaeda is composed not of homicidal maniacs, but is instead composed of students that are simply being fed the wrong beliefs, the wrong judgment, and the wrong answers and solutions to a difference in characteristics that naturally exists between two varying groups of people. Before, we saw how far this could go with Nazi Germany, and how far destructive propaganda can go to create one of the most destructive and unconscionable atrocities in human history.

The other issue is the culture of Islam that other people around the world are unfamiliar with. In America, one of the greatest freedoms we partake in is the freedom of expression. To us, the presence of Islamic women in burquas seems like a stark contrast to that freedom. In addition, there are those that feel insecure around these situations where they can’t even recognize the faces of those that they are trying to associate with, and how there is no chance a witness would be able to identify them if they were to commit a crime. For a moment, imagine how different society would be if everyone wore burquas like these. Ask yourself, setting all cultural and religious devotion issues aside, how fair is it that women have to wear them and men don’t? Why are these women kept under so many coverings to the point where only their eyes can be seen? In America, we are highly focused on maintaining freedom, liberty, and justice for all. To us, matters like these seem to be an intrusion on those freedoms. That the women choose to wear them by act of choice and not duress or threat of punishment, that’s a different story. That the women are forced to wear them lest they be punished for not doing so, that looks like an attack on their freedom, which is not something we tolerate in this country. Meanwhile, in America, we have come a long way to ensure there are equal rights and opportunities to people of all races, genders, religions, and backgrounds. Things like these seem to be a step in the opposite direction, and already the struggle to move away from gender/race/religion-specific parameters, limitations, and boundaries has been long, hard, and extremely bloody.

One of the main concerns with Americans is that most people would prefer it if people came here and tried to adapt to the country’s culture, rather than expect to have the entire country adapt to them. The situation also works in reverse. An American going into a foreign country would need to be prepared for cultural differences, otherwise they run the risk of unintentionally offending someone or being perceived as rude.

What would I do if I was a leading Islamic leader? The first step I would take is to openly and publicly condemn those that seek to destroy and murder others in the name of the Islamic religion. As a Christian, I know that one of the most severe penalties that the Catholic Church can infract upon someone is excommunication. I’m not sure what kind of similar punishment the Islamic religion uses, but it would need to be on this level, as these extremists create a massive wave of negativity toward Islam and threaten the very structure of the religion. Their actions create enmities and destructive distrusts toward those of different religions that may have otherwise lived in peace with those had it not been for the actions of the extremists. As a Christian, I appreciate being called an “infidel” as much as someone of the Islamic religion would appreciate being called a “terrorist” or a “suicide bomber.” In addition to that, acceptance, tolerance, and coexistence need to work both ways. One group of people can not be the “givers” while the other group is the “takers.” Both sides need to understand the standpoint of the other group, and both sides need to appreciate the varying attributes and characteristics of the other.

I understand that there are many of the Islamic faith that despise the extremists. The more they make their voices heard, the more people will begin to understand that the destructive tendencies that the extremists follow have absolutely nothing to do with the real Islamic religion. The more that gap is defined and declared, the more people will begin to understand that there is no reason to make an association between the two groups, and instead, the extremists will soon come to realize their mission has only resulted in them being completely isolated and appreciated by no one.
__________________

  #3  
Old 10-01-2010, 02:55 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.

First off, thanx for your reply. Im sure you wouldnt mind if I responded though would you?

Quote:
The main underlying issue is that people typically associate the actions and demeanors of extremists with those that follow the Islamic religion out of peace and have no intention of causing physical or mental harm to others that may not follow the same religious practices.
Agreed one hundred and ten percent ^_^

Quote:
What people need to focus on is that the extremists resemble a different, more destructive and oppressive version of the Islamic religion where walking into an open public area and blowing themselves up to kill as many “infidels” as they can is perceived as “glorious” with false promises of being granted paradise along with seventy-two virgins. The issue is only the violent negatives have been captured by the media, and because of that, people associate all of Islam with the destructive terrorism that goes on. What people need to realize is that Al Qaeda is composed not of homicidal maniacs, but is instead composed of students that are simply being fed the wrong beliefs, the wrong judgment, and the wrong answers and solutions to a difference in characteristics that naturally exists between two varying groups of people. Before, we saw how far this could go with Nazi Germany, and how far destructive propaganda can go to create one of the most destructive and unconscionable atrocities in human history.
Agreeable so far.

Quote:
The other issue is the culture of Islam that other people around the world are unfamiliar with. In America, one of the greatest freedoms we partake in is the freedom of expression. To us, the presence of Islamic women in burquas seems like a stark contrast to that freedom. In addition, there are those that feel insecure around these situations where they can’t even recognize the faces of those that they are trying to associate with, and how there is no chance a witness would be able to identify them if they were to commit a crime. For a moment, imagine how different society would be if everyone wore burquas like these. Ask yourself, setting all cultural and religious devotion issues aside, how fair is it that women have to wear them and men don’t? Why are these women kept under so many coverings to the point where only their eyes can be seen? In America, we are highly focused on maintaining freedom, liberty, and justice for all. To us, matters like these seem to be an intrusion on those freedoms. That the women choose to wear them by act of choice and not duress or threat of punishment, that’s a different story. That the women are forced to wear them lest they be punished for not doing so, that looks like an attack on their freedom, which is not something we tolerate in this country. Meanwhile, in America, we have come a long way to ensure there are equal rights and opportunities to people of all races, genders, religions, and backgrounds. Things like these seem to be a step in the opposite direction, and already the struggle to move away from gender/race/religion-specific parameters, limitations, and boundaries has been long, hard, and extremely bloody.
Well I was looking for discussion strictly on terrorist extremism. However since you brought this issue up:

Quote:
The other issue is the culture of Islam that other people around the world are unfamiliar with. In America, one of the greatest freedoms we partake in is the freedom of expression. To us, the presence of Islamic women in burquas seems like a stark contrast to that freedom.
I completely understand the fact that America is not an Islaamic State, so yes, homogenizations of different culture might not work out. Especially when we take into account the fact that Islaamic culture and Liberal culture are not reconcilable. So on one hand, I acknowledge the fact that accepting such an alien culture might be difficult, in certain cases. On the other hand, I expect such a "liberal" state to be totalitarian. We might not like what you do but we will however defend your right to do it (Voltaire?), thats basically what I deem to be the crux of liberal philosophy (correct me if Im wrong here). So pinting finger at thir or that culture seems antagonistic to such a philosophy and also hypocritic.

Quote:
In addition, there are those that feel insecure around these situations where they can’t even recognize the faces of those that they are trying to associate with, and how there is no chance a witness would be able to identify them if they were to commit a crime.
These are special cases and not the general one.

Let me take this opportunity to quote something on Niqaab (Islaamic face cover) by Bint Ahmad:

Quote:
In truth the Niqaab is not dangerous. What is dangerous and threatens public
order are derogatory comments about the way people practice their faiths. The
political and media onslaught on Muslims testifies to this fact. This onslaught
has fuelled not only verbal but alarmingly surged physical attacks on Muslims.
Are Muslim women in Niqaab attacking places of worship by mobs and
firebombs? Are Niqaabis widely known to be crooks hiding guns? Or are they
known to be law abiding religious women with a conviction to please their
Lord?
"The woman who covers her face is the mostharmless individual in society. She doesn't drink;
she doesn't smoke and does not cause society any
problems."148
In reality who is the criminal? Who threatens public order and security is a
nuisance and what is more terrifying? Since the comments made by Jack Straw
Masjids and Islamic centres in Preston and Falkirk have been attacked my mobs
and firebombed. Other examples include (the full article was published in the
Independent149):
*A 49-year-old mother's Niqaab was snatched from her face at a bus stop in
Liverpool by a tall man in his 60s.150
*A Sister in Niqaab (in Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency) was verbally abused
by three youths.151
*A Sister in Niqaab was verbally abused in Hackney, east London.
The attacks on Muslims are clear proof that it is not the Niqaabis who should be
feared. If they were carrying guns and arms wouldn't they have taken out their
guns and shot at those who attacked them? The Niqaab is not about militancy or
oppression. Rather it is about love for God, personal piety and a focus on
spiritual self-development. In addition, while the Niqaab is often coupled with a
life that is more sheltered, it should be remembered that in Catholicism, a
number of nuns continue to live a cloistered lifestyle in order to better devote
themselves to God. Westerners should consider that context is very important
when trying to understand the practices of others, be they Muslim or of other
faiths. For anyone to use the Niqaab as an excuse for their inability to develop a
relationship with someone is not only ignorant, but rather pitiful at the same
time. To then incite the community to react against innocent women, creating in
the very least a tense atmosphere for a woman in Niqaab and at the very worst
physical abuse and attack (as has been witnessed in recent times), only goes to
prove the hypocrisy our ‘tolerant’ and ‘multi-cultural’ country is drowning in. If
we look at statistics152 how many women in Niqaab are committing crimes?
According to the article “one in three 17-30-year-olds is now classed as a heavy
drinker, bingeing on four or more drinks in one session at least once a fortnight”,
which translates to liver damage, premature death, cancer, heart problems, an
escalation in anti-social behaviour, lost working hours and puts those women at
risk of sexual assault. This trend affects one in out of every three young women
and yet British politicians, including Prime Minister Tony Blair, seem more
concerned about the handful of British women who have chosen to don the full
veil, which poses no danger to either themselves or to the public at large.
Truly one can not be dictated as to how they dress- and religious convictions
should not be attacked- especially when they do not harm anyone. Niqaabis are
not associated with crime or trouble. They are religious women minding their
own business, for this reason one will find that the people interested in security
hardly ever make an issue out of it. It should be noted that even in countries
where it is worn on a larger scale, it is not deemed as a security risk. Thus, associating Niqaab with violence is based on ignorance and malice.
Quote:
Bibliography:

148 Na'ima B Roberts in her book: 'From My Sister's Lips.'
149 http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...cle1870842.ece
150 Friday 6 October also mentioned in an article in This is London (7 October 2006 CE)
151 Friday 6 October
152 http://www.nationmaster.com/country/...gdom/cri-crime
She writes from the perspective of UK citizen, but I think the concept is same elsewhere as well.

Quote:
For a moment, imagine how different society would be if everyone wore burquas like these.
different doesnt imply worse, in fact society might turn out to be better. Now I understand where you are coming from, accepting these in a Liberal society might be different. But the truth is Islaamic culture is simply not liberalistic culture. So trying to homogenize the two wouldnt really work out here. Meaning, one culture cannot judge the merit of another taking its own values as the premises, for obvious logically fallacious reasons.

Quote:
Ask yourself, setting all cultural and religious devotion issues aside, how fair is it that women have to wear them and men don’t?
The issue of "fairness" only comes to mind once we build on the premise that men and women are absolutely equal in every last sphere of life and therefore they deserve identical (not even equal, identical) rights in everything. This premise however is questionable. Men and women have not only biological, but also physiological and even intellectual differences, and Islaam appreciates and accepts this fact, and wishes to make laws pertaining to this reality rather than a blanket rule covering every individual.

If you want the Muslim's Justification for the women wearing Hijaab/Niqaab/Burqaa, I suggest you read this short post:
Quote:
Why do Muslim woman wear a hijab?
Well foremost, the motive that any Muslim should have in order to do anything is that his/her religion asks it of him/her. We believe that the rules from our religion come from God, and follow them as a form of worship in the hope to obtain his contentment.

That being said, we also believe that since God is the all-powerfull, all-knowing, and most mercifull, that there is a benefit not only in the hereafter but in this life as well in following Islam. Just as the engineer who designed a machine is most fit to write the operating manual, so too do we believe that the guidance that comes from our creator is the most perfect guidance, and that we can find many practical benefits both on an individual level as well as on a social level in every rule that Islam sets.

What are some of the practical benefits of woman wearing the hijab?
1) It protects the woman's status and honor.

A woman wearing a hijab can only be judged by her character, by her kindness, or her intellect, or her altruistic nature and so on...
Of course it would be nice that men would do the same for woman who don't wear hijab, but sadly only a small minority of men do so. I think this is an undeniable fact. Men will always judge woman by the looks, or at least treat them differently or behave differently around them. Now, you can feel free to resent that. And although being a man myself I can understand you'd want to resent that, and I even resent that myself. But nevertheless that is simply the way it is and always has been.

2) It prevents men from getting sexually frustrated.
As a young healthy single men living in the west who wishes to guard his chastity I can guarantee you it surely is no picknick. everywhere you look you're bombard with images that stick in your head like glue on rubber. And while it would only add to frustration with some men, to some other men this frustration might build up to the point where they commit crimes because of it. And without any offense intended, I don't think you can understand the severity of such a drive since you are yourself a woman. It has been scientifically proven that the sexual desire in man is far stronger, at least stronger in the sense that it's harder for an individual to suppress it by mere will. Another diffrence between men and woman, is that while a woman's sex-drive is complex and among other factors might be influenced by the state of mind, the menstruational cyclus. When it comes to men it is much more straightforward. testosterone levels rise and stay at a peak, until there is an ejaculation and it drops, and depending on circumstances it can start rising almost immediately afterwards again. This means that for a woman it's much easier to suppress such a drift, since it fades by other factors eventually, whereas when a man struggles to subdue his drift, it's a constant battle.
A third difference between men and woman, are the things that arouse and initiate these drifts. It's again psychologically proven that whereas man are more attracted to physical charesteristics in woman, woman on the other hand find sexual attraction in other charesteristics in a man as well. That's of course not to say that woman don't find th physical attractive, or that man can't find the character of a woman attractive. Obviously both things can initiate sexual desire in both man and woman, however, what is clear is that the ratio between these two factors is different between men and woman. And not just slightly, but significantly.
Of course none of this is an excuse for rape. I'm just explaining how important of an issue the sexual drift of men is, in order to understand the different rules in Islam.

Judging a rule vs. judging a system
Another aspect of your post which I would like to point out; is that it's unfair to look at a single rule, outside of it's system. Islam is a set of rules, which when combined form the most perfect guidance to mankind. when you take a single rule however and examine it from a western point of view, one might get a completely unrepresentative view of that rule. For example, when looking at the rule of hijab, it's easy for people to mistakenly think that Islam enforces rules on Woman because of the shortcoming of men. And that in such, it thus favors men over woman. A stereotypical judgement found about Islam. this judgement is however completely false. while some rules might indeed appear to favor men, other rules favor woman and make it easier for them. In fact a lot of western woman convert to Islam because they realie it's beauty and the protection it gives to woman. The rise of Islam was the birth of woman's rights, and many rights appeared there for teh first time in history many centuries ago whereas they have only existed for a few decades here after the femenistic movement in the west.

In the end we need to remember that there is a balance between the different rules in Islam which seeks to establish the most beneficial co-existence between men and woman. Here's a list of some of the rules you might or might not be aware of in Islam concerning this issue:
- Man and woman are not supposed to mingle freely (with the exception of family and husband and wife of course).
- Both man and woman should lower their gaze when they see something that invokes desire.
- Both man and woman need to cover certain parts of there body. For the woman everything except their hands and face, and for the men everything between the navel and the side of the knee.

So yes, in this last rule there's a significant difference between men and woman. But given the different psychological aspects of the brain I explained this difference should be understandable.

Some figures.
Finally I would like to confront you with the following, and ask you on your thoughts on this: If you look at the numbers of rape per year per country you see significant differences between the west and the middle east. I took numbers from 2002 simply because those where the first I found after a google search:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

You'll see the Us tops the charts with a staggering 95136 rapes in just one year. That means in the year 2002 a woman was being raped every 6 minutes!
And yes, I grant that indeed in some middle eastern countries there's a problem with the correctness of reports, and not every rape will get reported, or not every rape that's reported gets added to the statistics and published. Yes I grant there are these problems, and that you can expect significant changes in the charts were these factored out, but no matter how significant the change this would bring, it will never put other countries even remotely near what's happening in the US.

And again, I can't stress enough, that by no means am I trying to claim that woman bring this on to themselves.this is not an issue of putting the blame, but simply an issue of working out a pragmatic solution. And Islam has a solution to every problem of mankind. I can only hope that my message helped in nuancating your views of Islam, and your views on what Muslim men think on this issue.
Quote:
In America, we are highly focused on maintaining freedom, liberty, and justice for all.
__________________
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal

Last edited by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah; 10-01-2010 at 02:58 AM. Reason: Fixed a link
  #4  
Old 10-01-2010, 02:55 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.

Since you have questioned the Islaamic culture, let me now question the liberal cultural values: what gives you the impression that justice is achieved by generalizing between all individuals and giving them identical rights as a blanket rule? I personally think that the individualistic premise on which liberalism builds upon is flawed. To mention just a few tangents of arguments against liberal philosophy:

- Liberalism’s political values are the outcome of specific social and historical conditions, subjected to a specific type of analysis. Therefore it must be asked, is Liberalism an 'absolute' alternative to other ideologies, or is it historically and geographically bound? If Liberalism is found to be historically and context bound then it can not have any relevance in today’s modern society.

- Philosophically, liberalism’s political values rest on the premise of individualism, or what some political philosophers call atomism. Most definitely it can be argued that this is not a safe premise to base political philosophies and legislative rulings on. however Im just pointing to the fact this is arguable, and not making an argument ^_^

- From a practical and social research perspective modern liberal societies, specifically the UK and US, exhibit signs of increasing social breakdown and social malaise. If the most predominant political values propagated in western societies are Liberalism’s political values, and these societies are showing signs of social decay, then it naturally follows that Liberalism is a key contributing factor to modern social problems. This argument rests on the premise that there is an established link between propagated values and a society’s behaviour; this essay will bring to light social research strengthening this premise.

Quote:
That the women choose to wear them by act of choice and not duress or threat of punishment, that’s a different story.
And the common one ^_^ Muslim women wear what they wear out of their love for God and not out of the fear for men. Thats the general attitude of a pious Muslim woman.

Quote:
That the women are forced to wear them lest they be punished for not doing so, that looks like an attack on their freedom, which is not something we tolerate in this country.
There is no scope of that even being established in a liberal atmosphere.

Quote:
One of the main concerns with Americans is that most people would prefer it if people came here and tried to adapt to the country’s culture, rather than expect to have the entire country adapt to them.
Not so in a liberalistic totalitarian State. You practise what you wish, and let us practise what we wish without any impediment. To say otherwise is a bit of hypocritic, why point to a certain culture just on the basis that this goes against the prevalent culture? We dont expect the entire country to adapt to this culture, the least we are asking is to accept the differences, and live and let live, as the liebrals might say.

Quote:
The situation also works in reverse. An American going into a foreign country would need to be prepared for cultural differences, otherwise they run the risk of unintentionally offending someone or being perceived as rude.
This all depends on whether the culture of this latter place is liberalistic or not. If it is not, then of course theargument is flawed, since its a fallacious generalization. If it is, then the same live and let live principle applies here.


Quote:
What would I do if I was a leading Islamic leader? The first step I would take is to openly and publicly condemn those that seek to destroy and murder others in the name of the Islamic religion. As a Christian, I know that one of the most severe penalties that the Catholic Church can infract upon someone is excommunication. I’m not sure what kind of similar punishment the Islamic religion uses, but it would need to be on this level, as these extremists create a massive wave of negativity toward Islam and threaten the very structure of the religion. Their actions create enmities and destructive distrusts toward those of different religions that may have otherwise lived in peace with those had it not been for the actions of the extremists. As a Christian, I appreciate being called an “infidel” as much as someone of the Islamic religion would appreciate being called a “terrorist” or a “suicide bomber.” In addition to that, acceptance, tolerance, and coexistence need to work both ways. One group of people can not be the “givers” while the other group is the “takers.” Both sides need to understand the standpoint of the other group, and both sides need to appreciate the varying attributes and characteristics of the other.

I understand that there are many of the Islamic faith that despise the extremists. The more they make their voices heard, the more people will begin to understand that the destructive tendencies that the extremists follow have absolutely nothing to do with the real Islamic religion. The more that gap is defined and declared, the more people will begin to understand that there is no reason to make an association between the two groups, and instead, the extremists will soon come to realize their mission has only resulted in them being completely isolated and appreciated by no one.
I agree to this, but just as a side point, let us not forget that Islaamic extremism is quite often the result of western wrong being done to the Muslim World. As a matter of fact -and Im not saying this with a mindset to justifying the extremists at all- The wrong thats been done to the Muslim world by the Secular Liberalistic political paradigm is far greater than whatever harm Muslim extremists caused. Point being, we need to point our fingers to all the guilty parties simultaneously.

Let me quote Professor Robert Pape:

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”

Thanks again for your feedback.
__________________
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal
  #5  
Old 10-01-2010, 04:31 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.

Hmm, interesting observations with regards to the hijabs. Thanks for sharing that, I found it to be pretty insightful.

Also, for the record, I’m actually more on the conservative side, and there is a lot of liberal beliefs I personally don’t agree with. But to your points:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Since you have questioned the Islaamic culture, let me now question the liberal cultural values: what gives you the impression that justice is achieved by generalizing between all individuals and giving them identical rights as a blanket rule? I personally think that the individualistic premise on which liberalism builds upon is flawed. To mention just a few tangents of arguments against liberal philosophy:

- Liberalism’s political values are the outcome of specific social and historical conditions, subjected to a specific type of analysis. Therefore it must be asked, is Liberalism an 'absolute' alternative to other ideologies, or is it historically and geographically bound? If Liberalism is found to be historically and context bound then it can not have any relevance in today’s modern society.
I personally don’t believe its either. It’s a guideline created under the idea that all individuals were created equal, and that one group of people doesn’t have leverage over another group of people due to uncontrollable circumstances such as race or gender. Instead, people are judged more on the content of their character. Personally, I don’t think this is flawed, no more so than the alternative of a social caste system that is often subjected to internal conflicts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
- Philosophically, liberalism’s political values rest on the premise of individualism, or what some political philosophers call atomism. Most definitely it can be argued that this is not a safe premise to base political philosophies and legislative rulings on. however Im just pointing to the fact this is arguable, and not making an argument ^_^
Well, that comes down to matter of opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
- From a practical and social research perspective modern liberal societies, specifically the UK and US, exhibit signs of increasing social breakdown and social malaise. If the most predominant political values propagated in western societies are Liberalism’s political values, and these societies are showing signs of social decay, then it naturally follows that Liberalism is a key contributing factor to modern social problems. This argument rests on the premise that there is an established link between propagated values and a society’s behaviour; this essay will bring to light social research strengthening this premise.
I’d like to see some links with this research claim. To me, I don’t think a society of inequalities has a lesser chance of social conflict. Not when entire wars were started over such things. We can look back to Nazi Germany, where an entire genocidal campaign was started from beliefs that entire groups of people were to be blamed for things that weren’t true.

Again, content of character is what’s important here, not race, social class, gender, or any of those criterion. Yes, there is an issue when too much liberalism is shown, and those that should be subjected to investigation and punishment are given pardons by those with money and/or political power. Yes, the system isn’t perfect, but it observes the rights of all individuals and it’s a heck of a better system to increase the overall quality of life and freedom within the country. I wouldn’t want to live in a country where only certain people have rights and leverages over those that have been chosen to be deprived by certain individuals simply because of forces those people could not control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Not so in a liberalistic totalitarian State. You practice what you wish, and let us practice what we wish without any impediment. To say otherwise is a bit of hypocritic, why point to a certain culture just on the basis that this goes against the prevalent culture? We don't expect the entire country to adapt to this culture, the least we are asking is to accept the differences, and live and let live, as the liberals might say.
It’s based on a matter of perceptions. After 9/11, there were many people that questioned the nature of the attacks. The fact they were Islamic extremists immediately caused them to naturally question the nature of the Islamic religion, and because of that, assumptions were made. The main important point is to break the association bond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
I agree to this, but just as a side point, let us not forget that Islaamic extremism is quite often the result of western wrong being done to the Muslim World. As a matter of fact -and Im not saying this with a mindset to justifying the extremists at all- The wrong thats been done to the Muslim world by the Secular Literalistic political paradigm is far greater than whatever harm Muslim extremists caused. Point being, we need to point our fingers to all the guilty parties simultaneously.
Any way you slice it, extremism of any nature isn’t justified with the killing of innocent people. On 9/11, I saw the twin towers collapse on television, knowing a horrific amount of innocent civilians were killed, national security was suddenly threatened, and with it, a chain reaction of distrust and suspicion was caused. And this was felt worldwide as well with subsequent terrorist attacks. Honestly, I don’t know what we would be doing that could possibly be considered “far greater wrong” than what Muslim extremists are causing.

If you’re referring to Iraq (Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom) and Afghanistan, these campaigns were started with the objective of removing terrorist threats and taking a destructive dictator out of political power. During World War II, we originally stayed out of the war, while destructive war criminals like Hitler and Stalin came to power, and slaughtered millions of innocents. In truth, it is our intention to avoid having the same situation arise again. The reason why Iraq was targeted was the potential that weapons of mass destruction existed within Iraq. It was better to attempt to search and turn up nothing than to remain indifferent toward it and allow someone to use such weapons because we wrongfully chose to ignore the issue.

Also, there is American presence throughout the world, it isn’t just in the Middle East.
__________________

  #6  
Old 10-01-2010, 04:49 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Pikachu View Post
Also, for the record, I’m actually more on the conservative side, and there is a lot of liberal beliefs I personally don’t agree with. But to your points:
He's not referring to liberalism as a matter of politics, but the philisophical concept upon which most of the Western world is based, emphasizing individual liberty and equal rights. Nothing to do with tax rates and gay marriage.

Quote:
I personally don’t believe its either. It’s a guideline created under the idea that all individuals were created equal, and that one group of people doesn’t have leverage over another group of people due to uncontrollable circumstances such as race or gender. Instead, people are judged more on the content of their character. Personally, I don’t think this is flawed, no more so than the alternative of a social caste system that is often subjected to internal conflicts.
Agreed. I'd also add that it's a concept of political equality, not necessarily social equality. That we aren't necessarily treated as equals by each other, but are equal under the law-which essentially means that the same laws apply equally to everyone.

Quote:
Any way you slice it, extremism of any nature isn’t justified with the killing of innocent people. On 9/11, I saw the twin towers collapse on television, knowing a horrific amount of innocent civilians were killed, national security was suddenly threatened, and with it, a chain reaction of distrust and suspicion was caused. And this was felt worldwide as well with subsequent terrorist attacks. Honestly, I don’t know what we would be doing that could possibly be considered “far greater wrong” than what Muslim extremists are causing.

If you’re referring to Iraq (Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom) and Afghanistan, these campaigns were started with the objective of removing terrorist threats and taking a destructive dictator out of political power. During World War II, we originally stayed out of the war, while destructive war criminals like Hitler and Stalin came to power, and slaughtered millions of innocents. In truth, it is our intention to avoid having the same situation arise again. The reason why Iraq was targeted was the potential that weapons of mass destruction existed within Iraq. It was better to attempt to search and turn up nothing than to remain indifferent toward it and allow someone to use such weapons because we wrongfully chose to ignore the issue.

Also, there is American presence throughout the world, it isn’t just in the Middle East.
I'm also going to add that the comment about the "Secular Liberalistic political paradigm" was completely and totally uncalled for. We don't deliberately and directly target innocents for the sake of politics. We don't set into motion multiple wars and conflicts through the slaughter of innocent civilians all for the sake of political goals.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #7  
Old 10-01-2010, 06:18 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.

This is turning out to be quite an interesting discussion.

Quote:
I personally don’t believe its either. It’s a guideline created under the idea that all individuals were created equal, and that one group of people doesn’t have leverage over another group of people due to uncontrollable circumstances such as race or gender. Instead, people are judged more on the content of their character. Personally, I don’t think this is flawed, no more so than the alternative of a social caste system that is often subjected to internal conflicts.
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
Quote:
I don’t think this is flawed, no more so than the alternative of a social caste system that is often subjected to internal conflicts.
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:
Quote:
one group of people doesn’t have leverage over another group of people due to uncontrollable circumstances such as race or gender.
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.

Quote:
Well, that comes down to matter of opinion.
Indeed it does. I do not wish to discuss this here, since questioning Individualism deserves a different thread for itself.

Quote:
I’d like to see some links with this research claim.
you could refer here for starters. http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/Liberalism1.0.pdf

Quote:
To me, I don’t think a society of inequalities has a lesser chance of social conflict. Not when entire wars were started over such things. We can look back to Nazi Germany, where an entire genocidal campaign was started from beliefs that entire groups of people were to be blamed for things that weren’t true.
Again, we are going to extremes. Just because the polar opposite is wrong, doesnt mean liberalism is right.

Quote:
Again, content of character is what’s important here, not race, social class, gender, or any of those criterion. Yes, there is an issue when too much liberalism is shown, and those that should be subjected to investigation and punishment are given pardons by those with money and/or political power. Yes, the system isn’t perfect, but it observes the rights of all individuals and it’s a heck of a better system to increase the overall quality of life and freedom within the country. I wouldn’t want to live in a country where only certain people have rights and leverages over those that have been chosen to be deprived by certain individuals simply because of forces those people could not control.
Answered above.

Quote:
It’s based on a matter of perceptions. After 9/11, there were many people that questioned the nature of the attacks. The fact they were Islamic extremists immediately caused them to naturally question the nature of the Islamic religion, and because of that, assumptions were made. The main important point is to break the association bond.
I agree and let me praise you for the open mindedness you have shown in this particular arena.

Quote:
Any way you slice it, extremism of any nature isn’t justified with the killing of innocent people. On 9/11, I saw the twin towers collapse on television, knowing a horrific amount of innocent civilians were killed, national security was suddenly threatened, and with it, a chain reaction of distrust and suspicion was caused. And this was felt worldwide as well with subsequent terrorist attacks.
The first statemenet here puts everything into perspective.

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.

I do not want to get into the justification of the USA doing what they are doing, Political Policy based debates isnt my strong point. Thats why you might have noticed that Im sticking with the principles and not the policies. So lets keep the discussion restrained to principles. If I brought any arguments which relate to policy, then I take them back.

Quote:
I'm also going to add that the comment about the "Secular Liberalistic political paradigm" was completely and totally uncalled for. We don't deliberately and directly target innocents for the sake of politics. We don't set into motion multiple wars and conflicts through the slaughter of innocent civilians all for the sake of political goals.
This I think is a policy issue and my previous paragraph about applies here. And I apologize for bringing a policy-based argument in the first place.
__________________
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal

Last edited by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah; 10-01-2010 at 06:20 AM.
  #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.
__________________

  #9  
Old 10-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
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).

Again, we are going to extremes. Just because the polar opposite is wrong, doesnt mean liberalism is right.
We aren't saying that the polar opposite is wrong, therefore liberalism is right. We're saying that liberalism (again, the philosophy, not the ideology) is better than its polar opposite. In a system where all citizens, regardless of who they are, where they come from or how they were born are treated equally and have all laws applied equally to them, there is a lesser chance of conflict within that society as inequality is often a basis for such conflicts. Remove inequality and you remove that basis, thus giving less cause for social conflict.

Quote:
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.
Yeah, I'm calling bull here. A man can easily be as motherly as a woman. A woman can easily be as strong as a man. This is the entire point of liberalism, that it's the content of one's character and the choices one makes that determine who you are and what you can do, not the nature of your birth, not the color of your skin and not even what gender you are. There are women in the roles men traditionally fill in this country and they do just as good a job of it. There are men who fill the traditional roles of women and they do just as good a job of it. The evidence that liberal countries which treat men and women exactly the same have provided render your argument moot.

Quote:
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.
Supporting the state of Israel and pressuring Arab states on policies we disagree with is not as evil as mass murder, setting off multiple bloody and often pointless wars which only make things worse for both sides, and creating ethno-religious conflict. Not nearly.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #10  
Old 10-02-2010, 01:33 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
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.


Quote:
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.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 10-02-2010 at 01:42 PM.
  #11  
Old 10-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
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.
Unfortunately, due to the differences in geographical, economical, geopolitical, etc. climates, comparing US imperialism with basically any other kind of imperialism in the past is like comparing apples with oranges. The only real "link" between the two is the fact that a single country is controlling other countries.

In fact, I would presume that US's methods are more efficient at imperialism than the more clunky methods used by Britain, Portugal, Rome, etc. due to the fact that the system of controls is "remotely controlled", something that none of the other empires were capable of doing. That is, global economics, WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc. as a control method is something entirely new that separates US imperialism with older methods of control, which requires physical occupation, as you have said. The fact that this form of control is invisible to the layman's eye should be immediately obvious as to why it's been so successful.
  #12  
Old 10-02-2010, 08:27 PM
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.

Quote:
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:
Yeah, I'm calling bull here. A man can easily be as motherly as a woman. A woman can easily be as strong as a man. This is the entire point of liberalism, that it's the content of one's character and the choices one makes that determine who you are and what you can do, not the nature of your birth, not the color of your skin and not even what gender you are. There are women in the roles men traditionally fill in this country and they do just as good a job of it. There are men who fill the traditional roles of women and they do just as good a job of it. The evidence that liberal countries which treat men and women exactly the same have provided render your argument moot.
Quote:
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.
My response to this is as follows.

First of all, about the "freedom of choice" spoken of, I think theres a concensus that we do not imply unrestricted freedom of choice. There are laws and restrictions in all societies, which are by definition there to "limit" freedom, in the obvious sense of the word. However the debate is on the nature of the law, whether it would be a fit-for-all one, or one adapted to the specific characteristics of each gender.

Second, Islaamic Gender-specific laws build on the following premise: men and women are not equal and there are intrinsical physiological and psychological differences between the two. I think this premise is factual, and has scientific basis to it. Thats why the Islamist is coming from: he claims since thw two arent equal, in the absolute sense of the word, therefore the laws and rulings pertaining to certain cases would differ as well.

Third, the objection that I perceive against this is: there are exceptions to this general rule, and conservatism doesnt make room for these exceptions, when liberalism does. This again, I think, is the same faulty argument: "since the polar opposite of liberalism is wrong therefore liberalism is right". What the Islaamic Law basically does is it treats the general issue as generalistic, and treats the exceptional issue as exceptional. In other words, the doors to the exceptions in an Islaamic society arent closed, they are left open, though they are marked "exceptional". In the case of Liberalism however, theres no such thing as generalistic or exceptional, one big blanket of the same law is tossed over everyone, regardless of the difference, and I claim this difference to be intrinsic, there is. The exceptional are treated as general (the general is treated as general as well). This builds on the premise that everyone is equal, disregarding the fact that there are differences.

Quote:
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.
The essay criticises liberalism on a philosophical level, and it points out the flaws inherent in individualistic thought. So the argument is made at a philosophical level, and then later fortified with some policy-based factual evidence.

Quote:
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.
The author claims that these cause and effect relationships are valid.

Quote:
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.
If you have any arguments against this essay, you can direct it to me, I will try and argue in its favor, if I cannot then I will email the specific arguments to the author, if God wills.

Quote:
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.
I doubt whether that would be possible, since Islaamic State doesnt exist today. The only way we can make arguments from a policy level is by referring to the past remarks about the State. Thats what the author basically does, though I stand neutral on the claim against the author that he is being biased.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Supporting the state of Israel and pressuring Arab states on policies we disagree with is not as evil as mass murder, setting off multiple bloody and often pointless wars which only make things worse for both sides, and creating ethno-religious conflict. Not nearly.
Quote:
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.
My apologies, and Im phrasing this a second time here:

Quote:
I do not want to get into the justification of the USA doing what they are doing, Political Policy based debates isnt my strong point. Thats why you might have noticed that Im sticking with the principles and not the policies. So lets keep the discussion restrained to principles. If I brought any arguments which relate to policy, then I take them back.
Although I plan to open a new thread on US Foreign Policy, for the sake of knowledge.

Quote:
We aren't saying that the polar opposite is wrong, therefore liberalism is right. We're saying that liberalism (again, the philosophy, not the ideology) is better than its polar opposite. In a system where all citizens, regardless of who they are, where they come from or how they were born are treated equally and have all laws applied equally to them, there is a lesser chance of conflict within that society as inequality is often a basis for such conflicts. Remove inequality and you remove that basis, thus giving less cause for social conflict.
Thats only assuming that men and women are intrinsically equal. I think this premise need to be taken with a grain of salt, as demonstrated in this post, and those before it.

Quote:
And just who gets to decide those "different laws and rules"?
That is an altogether different debate, as to whether the authority on which these laws are based on is True or not.

Quote:
Thus it is impossible to establish true "fairness" between the genders while having different laws.
I think this is an assertion rather than an argument.

Quote:
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.
I think the "blame" falls on you as well. The only reason I brought anti-liberal arguments i to answer your criticisms against Hijaab.

Quote:
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.
Theres no point in debating about that, since its been agreed upon ^_^

And lastly:

Quote:
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.
First, the signature was nothing but a joke

Second, and more importantly, the joke was on me, and not on you. It was basically like saying 'I went to a camping trip with my friend but ended up studying american history there". I was basically creating, jokingly, the "lifeless nerd" image. So the joke was intended to be on me.

Third, I assure you, the "suggestiveness" you speak of is deliberate, and I requested the debate with a mindset to developing my arguments, and I am reaching that end. So nothing whatsoever to complain about.
__________________
All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. - Blaise Pascal
  #13  
Old 10-03-2010, 02:27 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Islaamic Extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
First of all, about the "freedom of choice" spoken of, I think theres a concensus that we do not imply unrestricted freedom of choice. There are laws and restrictions in all societies, which are by definition there to "limit" freedom, in the obvious sense of the word. However the debate is on the nature of the law, whether it would be a fit-for-all one, or one adapted to the specific characteristics of each gender.
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.

Quote:
Second, Islaamic Gender-specific laws build on the following premise: men and women are not equal and there are intrinsical physiological and psychological differences between the two. I think this premise is factual, and has scientific basis to it. Thats why the Islamist is coming from: he claims since thw two arent equal, in the absolute sense of the word, therefore the laws and rulings pertaining to certain cases would differ as well.
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.

Quote:
Third, the objection that I perceive against this is: there are exceptions to this general rule, and conservatism doesnt make room for these exceptions, when liberalism does. This again, I think, is the same faulty argument: "since the polar opposite of liberalism is wrong therefore liberalism is right". What the Islaamic Law basically does is it treats the general issue as generalistic, and treats the exceptional issue as exceptional. In other words, the doors to the exceptions in an Islaamic society arent closed, they are left open, though they are marked "exceptional". In the case of Liberalism however, theres no such thing as generalistic or exceptional, one big blanket of the same law is tossed over everyone, regardless of the difference, and I claim this difference to be intrinsic, there is. The exceptional are treated as general (the general is treated as general as well). This builds on the premise that everyone is equal, disregarding the fact that there are differences.
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.

Quote:
The author claims that these cause and effect relationships are valid.
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.

Quote:
I doubt whether that would be possible, since Islaamic State doesnt exist today. The only way we can make arguments from a policy level is by referring to the past remarks about the State. Thats what the author basically does, though I stand neutral on the claim against the author that he is being biased.
Quote:
I doubt whether that would be possible, since Islaamic State doesnt exist today.

Quote:
Islaamic State doesnt exist today.
I'm sorry, then what would you characterize every country in the Middle East other than Israel as?

Quote:
Thats only assuming that men and women are intrinsically equal. I think this premise need to be taken with a grain of salt, as demonstrated in this post, and those before it.
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.

Quote:
I think this is an assertion rather than an argument.
a) it's an assertion in general and a counter to your argument against liberalism, making it an argument in and of itself, and b) in a debate you're expected to respond to assertions just as much as arguments.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #14  
Old 10-08-2010, 09:43 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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
  #15  
Old 10-08-2010, 02:19 PM
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
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.
You seem to be forgetting that not everyone is Islamic, and not everyone even believes in God. Even if this was done, there would be plenty of people that would believe that these Islamic laws are inapplicable to them simply because they don’t follow the religion. As a result, you would have plenty of people that would refuse to acknowledge them because the application of these Islamic laws favors the idea that everyone being put under them is Islamic themselves. In addition, Islamic law is honestly quite old, while legislation has to keep the laws dynamic to respond to changes in society, especially with the evolution of technology, medical science, research, and so on.

Democracy, while not perfect, works far better on neutral ground where people are allowed to practice their own religion and have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe.

Quote:
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 justificationdoesnt 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 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.
I think you’re missing the point that some people don’t want to be put into the roles that society has deemed “acceptable” for them. Women may not want to be the dutiful housewives they were originally perceived to be. And they have perfectly good reason to want to strive to become something different and break the norm. Men may be perfectly fine with cleaning the house and watching over the kids while the wife works. You need to remember that we live in a very different time from when these Islamic laws were first created.

As for being treated differently, yes, the side that doesn’t get the fair share will regard it as unfair punishment. It’s nearly impossible to treat two sides differently and have both of them think it’s fair, and if you make it a gender-related discrimination, then the law will be perceived as being sexist and only favoring one gender over the other.

Case in point, Islamic gender-specific laws may believe they have different roles to play. However, modern times declares that these genders simply don’t want to play those roles, and nor should they have to.

Quote:
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!
Again, this comes across as being extremely sexist, and frankly, I find it disgusting.

I seriously feel you’re wrong, there are plenty of situations where a woman could be even superior to how a man could perform in the workplace, and there are plenty of situations where a man could perform superior in the “roles that were originally intended for women.” We live in a completely different and modern society than how it was thousands of years ago when these Islamic laws were first created. The reason why democracy is superior to Islamic law? Dynamism to evolve with modern times. Unless and until God makes His law dynamic on His own behalf and tailors the laws for the changes in modern society that have been experienced, we have to rely on human institutions and governance. Sure, there are still plenty of God’s laws that can be followed and observed, but a supplement is a must given modern times.

Quote:
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.
Define what you consider to be a woman’s role and what you consider to be a man’s role. I’ll gladly come up with a load of examples that explains why you’re wrong.

Quote:
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.
You and your essay make the reckless assumption that because the society follows a Liberalistic system, that’s the reason for high crime rates, higher scenarios of rape, and so on. No where does it make the consideration that areas where high crime rates occur may have trouble with police funding/operations/logistics, and no where does it make the consideration that areas with higher crime rates are obviously more densely populated where it will always be harder to monitor activities. The author of this simply digs for problems that a naturally higher populated country would experience, and simply assumes the reasons for those to be happening is because they’re not following Islamic law. Second, you and that essay assume that if Islamic law were to be put in place, all of these problems would be instantly solved and all of these troubles would simply go away. I think you both seem to forget that people who commit acts of crime like these have no regard for ANY law, whether it is created by liberal institutions or is an Islamic law. And this is where that whole essay meets its faults.

And the answer is no, there are a variety of reasons why these events and outcomes happen, and to assume everything is tied and related to a single general source is inattentive. And this is what I meant by that essay making the mistakes with its cause and effect relationships.

Quote:
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.
Again, consider how old these Islamic laws are. Is it really the constitution that’s in the wrong for not following the ways of old, or it is the Islamic laws that are in the wrong for not following the ways of new?
__________________

Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com