Discuss: Will a revival of the Caliphate for the entire world work/not work?

Undesired Walrus · 13th August 2007, 04:20 AM

I look around me in Britain, and more and more young, second generation Muslims are longing the return of the caliphate (I.e, a revived form of Hegel ideology).

Now, In this discussion, I beg of you, to imagine we are neither ruled by man nor ruled by God, we are neither in a democracy, or in the Ottoman Empire.

I wish to listen to those of you, who can delve into why a rule from God, would be such a bad idea in todays world (No, 'Because God doesn't exist man').

I am a non-believer, I don't want to be ruled by something that I percieve to not be there, but I want to discuss with you why simply saying the latter is not enough, and we need to delve in the failures of the Caliphate (As in not being able to resist colonial conquest) and how it simply cannot work/can work.

I feel a lot of objection to Hizb's message and so forth, is simply our instant rejection of something that threatens our way of life. Man, chopping off theives hands are bad, stoning homosexuals is bad, but why? Why, rather than simply going 'Because it is!'.

A strawman is the 'because there is no freedom of speech'. I wouldn't disagree that it would not decend into a lack of this freedom, but in the ideal Caliphate, there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

I'd argue that the reason so many are joining the ideology is not because they are simply thick, misguided morons (Many are smart, insightful and rational), but that we in the West are failing to uphold an ideology we cannot defend.

Some may say that the are in the minority, but even if that is true, I do not want to continue living in a country which forever has young kids refusing to vote for a system that does not liberate them.

As I look around, I see that the only way to defeat it is through philosophical debates.

For a source of debate, here is the video I shot yesterday at speakers corner, with a Caliphate 'revival' speech in the last 15-20 minutes.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...52459317349650

joobz · 13th August 2007, 05:35 AM

My rather simple (Naive) take...

Reason 1. Not everyone agrees on what god is, so how can we agree on how he would wish things to be governed.

This is a practical point. Even if everyone is of the same religion, factions and alternate interpretations of god's word always creeps in. This (along with poltical/social reasons) has been the primary motivator for the sectioning off of faiths. If the leader states his rule comes from the guidance of god, what stops others from stating that they should be leader because god told them so?

Reason 2. Top heavy government

The only way you can avoid inherent inconsistencies in interpretations of a god's word, is to have 1 person decide ultimately what that word is. You can't have a committee decide the proper interpretations. This would result in one person having to decide nearly everything for the entire world. Horribly inefficient, and wouldn't last. Sure you could deligate, but that would mean you have underlings deciding/enterpreting for themselves the word of god. This may be allowable depending on the degree to which we hold god's word as sacred. however, conflicts in interpretation that arise can easily devolve into reason 1.

Reason 3. There is no built in social contract with god's word.

This opens an easy back in into the supression of civil liberties. I know you claim this as a "strawman", but we must consider the reality and not the idealism of the religous run state. By allowing a word of god to determine what is/isn't lawful, we allow complete freedom to be decided by the person interpreting god's word. In the name of god is a powerful motivator and if it is decided that removal of freedoms is in god's interests, so be it.

Reason 4. Modern technology raises Ethical questions that is not explicitly addressed in any existing holy books.

Modern and future technology (e.g., cloning, artificial intelligence, stem cell research, information access, potential immortality) are not covered (to the best of my knowledge) in most holy texts (written 1500+ years ago). As such, the deciding on god's word is done by application of morals discussed in the texts (which are almost always contradictory) or by communing with god. In either case, this aspect blows the doors wide open for Reason 1, 2 and 3 to become the practical concern.

I'm certain there are better arguments, but this is just my rapid 2 cents worth.

Undesired Walrus · 13th August 2007, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

My rather simple (Naive) take...

Reason 1. Not everyone agrees on what god is, so how can we agree on how he would wish things to be governed.

This is a practical point. Even if everyone is of the same religion, factions and alternate interpretations of god's word always creeps in. This (along with poltical/social reasons) has been the primary motivator for the sectioning off of faiths. If the leader states his rule comes from the guidance of god, what stops others from stating that they should be leader because god told them so?

Reason 2. Top heavy government

The only way you can avoid inherent inconsistencies in interpretations of a god's word, is to have 1 person decide ultimately what that word is. You can't have a committee decide the proper interpretations. This would result in one person having to decide nearly everything for the entire world. Horribly inefficient, and wouldn't last. Sure you could deligate, but that would mean you have underlings deciding/enterpreting for themselves the word of god. This may be allowable depending on the degree to which we hold god's word as sacred. however, conflicts in interpretation that arise can easily devolve into reason 1.

Reason 3. There is no built in social contract with god's word.

This opens an easy back in into the supression of civil liberties. I know you claim this as a "strawman", but we must consider the reality and not the idealism of the religous run state. By allowing a word of god to determine what is/isn't lawful, we allow complete freedom to be decided by the person interpreting god's word. In the name of god is a powerful motivator and if it is decided that removal of freedoms is in god's interests, so be it.

Reason 4. Modern technology raises Ethical questions that is not explicitly addressed in any existing holy books.

Modern and future technology (e.g., cloning, artificial intelligence, stem cell research, information access, potential immortality) are not covered (to the best of my knowledge) in most holy texts (written 1500+ years ago). As such, the deciding on god's word is done by application of morals discussed in the texts (which are almost always contradictory) or by communing with god. In either case, this aspect blows the doors wide open for Reason 1, 2 and 3 to become the practical concern.

I'm certain there are better arguments, but this is just my rapid 2 cents worth.

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air your rational, ordered comments are.

I understand my accusation of strawman for point three is now rather vapid.

Undesired Walrus · 13th August 2007, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

My rather simple (Naive) take...

Reason 1. Not everyone agrees on what god is, so how can we agree on how he would wish things to be governed.

This is a practical point. Even if everyone is of the same religion, factions and alternate interpretations of god's word always creeps in. This (along with poltical/social reasons) has been the primary motivator for the sectioning off of faiths. If the leader states his rule comes from the guidance of god, what stops others from stating that they should be leader because god told them so?

Also, when you or I watch something as complex as a Stanley Kubrick film, or listen to the strings of Adagio for Strings, it is an argued point of contention that not only can no single person share the same point of perspective, no single person can ever put into the spoken or written word how they feel about said work of art. Thus, we have no way of undestanding if they ever view the art in the same light, as we do.

Is not the Earth, life, the breath of air and the touch of a tree the greatest work of art and the greatest complexity we have ever been confronted with?

It is bad enough to derive everything you know about 2001 through one critical analysis, to formulate your entire political, cultural and social world view around everything we derive our comprehension about existance from is another.

Which is why I also think Bush's rhetoric his belief that America has the right to liberate nations under oppression completly wrong. It may make us have more of these discussions, but the absolutist message is simply another arrogant critical analysis of waiting for Godot or something.

Complexity · 13th August 2007, 05:55 AM

Since the Caliphate is part of Sunni Islam but not part of Shi'a Islam, there would most likely be some problems.

Undesired Walrus · 13th August 2007, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Complexity

Since the Caliphate is part of Sunni Islam but not part of Shi'a Islam, there would most likely be some problems.

I actually spoke to the man on google video (Anyone have any views on his views yet?) yesterday, and he said he did not mind working with Shi'a Muslims on the issue.

Still, he most likely underestimates your point about the dangers.

joobz · 13th August 2007, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Which is why I also think Bush's rhetoric his belief that America has the right to liberate nations under oppression completly wrong. It may make us have more of these discussions, but the absolutist message is simply another arrogant critical analysis of waiting for Godot or something.

Definitely, and I would further it to say that his view is strengthened (entirely based on) his christian sense of moral superiority. And this was allowed to happen in a government with a charter that was carefully framed to prevent theocratic rule.

Big Les · 13th August 2007, 08:36 AM

Sorry, for me "the latter" will always be enough. I don't give a monkey's what young Muslims, or young Christians, or young Jews "long for".

But have a free bump.

Complexity · 13th August 2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I actually spoke to the man on google video (Anyone have any views on his views yet?) yesterday, and he said he did not mind working with Shi'a Muslims on the issue.

Still, he most likely underestimates your point about the dangers.

Ask him about the world uniting under an Imamate and see if he still doesn't "mind" working with Shi'a Muslims.

Undesired Walrus · 13th August 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

Sorry, for me "the latter" will always be enough. I don't give a monkey's what young Muslims, or young Christians, or young Jews "long for".

But have a free bump.

Well, you have the right of course. But isn't that a bit anti-intellectual and.. well, boring?

Complexity · 13th August 2007, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Well, you have the right of course. But isn't that a bit anti-intellectual and.. well, boring?

No and no.

I don't give a rat's about what they yearn for either. Being disinterested in the ramblings of the religious does not make one anti-intellectual.

While watching earnest young people struggle to make reality conform to their delusions may be good sport at first, it grows old quickly.

joobz · 13th August 2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Complexity

No and no.

I don't give a rat's about what they yearn for either. Being disinterested in the ramblings of the religious does not make one anti-intellectual.

While watching earnest young people struggle to make reality conform to their delusions may be good sport at first, it grows old quickly.

Unfortunately, I do not know if it is enough to just call them delusional. We live in the world where religion does hold sway, and we must arm ourselves against illogic with something more than just derision. At the very least, as a means of vacinating more people against the viral thoughts.

Ladewig · 13th August 2007, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I feel a lot of objection to Hizb's message and so forth, is simply our instant rejection of something that threatens our way of life. Man, chopping off theives hands are bad, stoning homosexuals is bad, but why? Why, rather than simply going 'Because it is!'.

It is more rational to decide that in a system of justice, the magnitude of the punishment should be proportionate to the magnitude of harm caused to innocents. Unlike stealing, consensual adult homosexuality does not harm innocent people, therefore killing them is both unjust and irrational.

Undesired Walrus · 13th August 2007, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Complexity

No and no.

I don't give a rat's about what they yearn for either. Being disinterested in the ramblings of the religious does not make one anti-intellectual.

Well, it depends does it not?

Without developing your point a bit more, I cannot understand what you are fully implying. However, what I think you are saying is that the ramblings of the irrational are not worthy of insight. Many times, this may be the case.

But to me, I'm afraid to say, it seems to portray itself as nothing less than desire to feed an intellectual superiority. I cannot help feel that Fred Phelps and co are, for the most part, slammed and spat on (In a physical and metaphorical sense) for the pleasure of the rational amoungst us, to make us feel superior, and to put our own irrational, imperfect ways behind us, if only for a short time. It seems that this 'joy' we get from it is simply flown under the banner of 'defeating' the hatred and evil of Fred Phelps and co. Hatred that grows a thicker shell whenever this happens.

This is why I see it as anti-intellectual, as it feeds the emotional beast inside of us, the same beast that pumps out religious rhetoric.

The Louis Theroux documentary on the Phelps family, in which he spoke to them in a rational and un-emotional style, let us into the inner workings of the minds of these people. In a way that is never achieved through simply throwing a beer bottle at their homophobic cries. The mindset of these people, and their soul (real or not), I realised, was more fascinating than many scientific wonders championed by rational scientists like Dawkins.

Maybe if we all try and defeat Islamism, and Phelps, by ideology, rather than harsh words and superior attitutes (Superior attitutes which are justified!), we may get somewhere in this mess of a planet.

But simply going 'religion is crap and useless' whenever a young kid picks up a flag of the Caliphate, is only going to play into the polarised world Bush and Bin Laden are working on.

The majority of your post I respect. Your absolutist 'no and no' is part of the problem I see here.

juniper_ann · 13th August 2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

It is more rational to decide that in a system of justice, the magnitude of the punishment should be proportionate to the magnitude of harm caused to innocents. Unlike stealing, consensual adult homosexuality does not harm innocent people, therefore killing them is both unjust and irrational.

You assume here that the material is more important than the internal, spiritual. If you assume the opposite, then setting a bad example for a person is a lot more harmful than just relieving the person of mere things...or for that matter, than sending the innocent person to heaven.

13th August 2007, 04:20 AM	#1
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,891	Discuss: Will a revival of the Caliphate for the entire world work/not work? I look around me in Britain, and more and more young, second generation Muslims are longing the return of the caliphate (I.e, a revived form of Hegel ideology). Now, In this discussion, I beg of you, to imagine we are neither ruled by man nor ruled by God, we are neither in a democracy, or in the Ottoman Empire. I wish to listen to those of you, who can delve into why a rule from God, would be such a bad idea in todays world (No, 'Because God doesn't exist man'). I am a non-believer, I don't want to be ruled by something that I percieve to not be there, but I want to discuss with you why simply saying the latter is not enough, and we need to delve in the failures of the Caliphate (As in not being able to resist colonial conquest) and how it simply cannot work/can work. I feel a lot of objection to Hizb's message and so forth, is simply our instant rejection of something that threatens our way of life. Man, chopping off theives hands are bad, stoning homosexuals is bad, but why? Why, rather than simply going 'Because it is!'. A strawman is the 'because there is no freedom of speech'. I wouldn't disagree that it would not decend into a lack of this freedom, but in the ideal Caliphate, there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. I'd argue that the reason so many are joining the ideology is not because they are simply thick, misguided morons (Many are smart, insightful and rational), but that we in the West are failing to uphold an ideology we cannot defend. Some may say that the are in the minority, but even if that is true, I do not want to continue living in a country which forever has young kids refusing to vote for a system that does not liberate them. As I look around, I see that the only way to defeat it is through philosophical debates. For a source of debate, here is the video I shot yesterday at speakers corner, with a Caliphate 'revival' speech in the last 15-20 minutes. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...52459317349650
	Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 13th August 2007 at 04:24 AM.

13th August 2007, 05:35 AM	#2
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,497	My rather simple (Naive) take... Reason 1. Not everyone agrees on what god is, so how can we agree on how he would wish things to be governed. This is a practical point. Even if everyone is of the same religion, factions and alternate interpretations of god's word always creeps in. This (along with poltical/social reasons) has been the primary motivator for the sectioning off of faiths. If the leader states his rule comes from the guidance of god, what stops others from stating that they should be leader because god told them so? Reason 2. Top heavy government The only way you can avoid inherent inconsistencies in interpretations of a god's word, is to have 1 person decide ultimately what that word is. You can't have a committee decide the proper interpretations. This would result in one person having to decide nearly everything for the entire world. Horribly inefficient, and wouldn't last. Sure you could deligate, but that would mean you have underlings deciding/enterpreting for themselves the word of god. This may be allowable depending on the degree to which we hold god's word as sacred. however, conflicts in interpretation that arise can easily devolve into reason 1. Reason 3. There is no built in social contract with god's word. This opens an easy back in into the supression of civil liberties. I know you claim this as a "strawman", but we must consider the reality and not the idealism of the religous run state. By allowing a word of god to determine what is/isn't lawful, we allow complete freedom to be decided by the person interpreting god's word. In the name of god is a powerful motivator and if it is decided that removal of freedoms is in god's interests, so be it. Reason 4. Modern technology raises Ethical questions that is not explicitly addressed in any existing holy books. Modern and future technology (e.g., cloning, artificial intelligence, stem cell research, information access, potential immortality) are not covered (to the best of my knowledge) in most holy texts (written 1500+ years ago). As such, the deciding on god's word is done by application of morals discussed in the texts (which are almost always contradictory) or by communing with god. In either case, this aspect blows the doors wide open for Reason 1, 2 and 3 to become the practical concern. I'm certain there are better arguments, but this is just my rapid 2 cents worth.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

13th August 2007, 05:38 AM	#3
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,891	Originally Posted by joobz My rather simple (Naive) take... Reason 1. Not everyone agrees on what god is, so how can we agree on how he would wish things to be governed. This is a practical point. Even if everyone is of the same religion, factions and alternate interpretations of god's word always creeps in. This (along with poltical/social reasons) has been the primary motivator for the sectioning off of faiths. If the leader states his rule comes from the guidance of god, what stops others from stating that they should be leader because god told them so? Reason 2. Top heavy government The only way you can avoid inherent inconsistencies in interpretations of a god's word, is to have 1 person decide ultimately what that word is. You can't have a committee decide the proper interpretations. This would result in one person having to decide nearly everything for the entire world. Horribly inefficient, and wouldn't last. Sure you could deligate, but that would mean you have underlings deciding/enterpreting for themselves the word of god. This may be allowable depending on the degree to which we hold god's word as sacred. however, conflicts in interpretation that arise can easily devolve into reason 1. Reason 3. There is no built in social contract with god's word. This opens an easy back in into the supression of civil liberties. I know you claim this as a "strawman", but we must consider the reality and not the idealism of the religous run state. By allowing a word of god to determine what is/isn't lawful, we allow complete freedom to be decided by the person interpreting god's word. In the name of god is a powerful motivator and if it is decided that removal of freedoms is in god's interests, so be it. Reason 4. Modern technology raises Ethical questions that is not explicitly addressed in any existing holy books. Modern and future technology (e.g., cloning, artificial intelligence, stem cell research, information access, potential immortality) are not covered (to the best of my knowledge) in most holy texts (written 1500+ years ago). As such, the deciding on god's word is done by application of morals discussed in the texts (which are almost always contradictory) or by communing with god. In either case, this aspect blows the doors wide open for Reason 1, 2 and 3 to become the practical concern. I'm certain there are better arguments, but this is just my rapid 2 cents worth. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air your rational, ordered comments are. I understand my accusation of strawman for point three is now rather vapid.
	Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 13th August 2007 at 05:40 AM.

13th August 2007, 05:55 AM	#5
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Since the Caliphate is part of Sunni Islam but not part of Shi'a Islam, there would most likely be some problems.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

13th August 2007, 06:39 AM	#7
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,497	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Which is why I also think Bush's rhetoric his belief that America has the right to liberate nations under oppression completly wrong. It may make us have more of these discussions, but the absolutist message is simply another arrogant critical analysis of waiting for Godot or something. Definitely, and I would further it to say that his view is strengthened (entirely based on) his christian sense of moral superiority. And this was allowed to happen in a government with a charter that was carefully framed to prevent theocratic rule.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

13th August 2007, 05:52 AM	#4
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,891	Originally Posted by joobz My rather simple (Naive) take... Reason 1. Not everyone agrees on what god is, so how can we agree on how he would wish things to be governed. This is a practical point. Even if everyone is of the same religion, factions and alternate interpretations of god's word always creeps in. This (along with poltical/social reasons) has been the primary motivator for the sectioning off of faiths. If the leader states his rule comes from the guidance of god, what stops others from stating that they should be leader because god told them so? Also, when you or I watch something as complex as a Stanley Kubrick film, or listen to the strings of Adagio for Strings, it is an argued point of contention that not only can no single person share the same point of perspective, no single person can ever put into the spoken or written word how they feel about said work of art. Thus, we have no way of undestanding if they ever view the art in the same light, as we do. Is not the Earth, life, the breath of air and the touch of a tree the greatest work of art and the greatest complexity we have ever been confronted with? It is bad enough to derive everything you know about 2001 through one critical analysis, to formulate your entire political, cultural and social world view around everything we derive our comprehension about existance from is another. Which is why I also think Bush's rhetoric his belief that America has the right to liberate nations under oppression completly wrong. It may make us have more of these discussions, but the absolutist message is simply another arrogant critical analysis of waiting for Godot or something.

13th August 2007, 06:03 AM	#6
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,891	Originally Posted by Complexity Since the Caliphate is part of Sunni Islam but not part of Shi'a Islam, there would most likely be some problems. I actually spoke to the man on google video (Anyone have any views on his views yet?) yesterday, and he said he did not mind working with Shi'a Muslims on the issue. Still, he most likely underestimates your point about the dangers.

13th August 2007, 08:36 AM	#8
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5,004	Sorry, for me "the latter" will always be enough. I don't give a monkey's what young Muslims, or young Christians, or young Jews "long for". But have a free bump.
	__________________ "Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof." -Stephen Fry The BS Historian

13th August 2007, 08:44 AM	#9
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus I actually spoke to the man on google video (Anyone have any views on his views yet?) yesterday, and he said he did not mind working with Shi'a Muslims on the issue. Still, he most likely underestimates your point about the dangers. Ask him about the world uniting under an Imamate and see if he still doesn't "mind" working with Shi'a Muslims.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

13th August 2007, 08:49 AM	#10
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,891	Originally Posted by Big Les Sorry, for me "the latter" will always be enough. I don't give a monkey's what young Muslims, or young Christians, or young Jews "long for". But have a free bump. Well, you have the right of course. But isn't that a bit anti-intellectual and.. well, boring?

13th August 2007, 09:57 AM	#11
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Well, you have the right of course. But isn't that a bit anti-intellectual and.. well, boring? No and no. I don't give a rat's about what they yearn for either. Being disinterested in the ramblings of the religious does not make one anti-intellectual. While watching earnest young people struggle to make reality conform to their delusions may be good sport at first, it grows old quickly.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

13th August 2007, 10:01 AM	#12
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,497	Originally Posted by Complexity No and no. I don't give a rat's about what they yearn for either. Being disinterested in the ramblings of the religious does not make one anti-intellectual. While watching earnest young people struggle to make reality conform to their delusions may be good sport at first, it grows old quickly. Unfortunately, I do not know if it is enough to just call them delusional. We live in the world where religion does hold sway, and we must arm ourselves against illogic with something more than just derision. At the very least, as a means of vacinating more people against the viral thoughts.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

13th August 2007, 10:14 AM	#13
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,817	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus I feel a lot of objection to Hizb's message and so forth, is simply our instant rejection of something that threatens our way of life. Man, chopping off theives hands are bad, stoning homosexuals is bad, but why? Why, rather than simply going 'Because it is!'. It is more rational to decide that in a system of justice, the magnitude of the punishment should be proportionate to the magnitude of harm caused to innocents. Unlike stealing, consensual adult homosexuality does not harm innocent people, therefore killing them is both unjust and irrational.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

13th August 2007, 10:54 AM	#14
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,891	Originally Posted by Complexity No and no. I don't give a rat's about what they yearn for either. Being disinterested in the ramblings of the religious does not make one anti-intellectual. Well, it depends does it not? Without developing your point a bit more, I cannot understand what you are fully implying. However, what I think you are saying is that the ramblings of the irrational are not worthy of insight. Many times, this may be the case. But to me, I'm afraid to say, it seems to portray itself as nothing less than desire to feed an intellectual superiority. I cannot help feel that Fred Phelps and co are, for the most part, slammed and spat on (In a physical and metaphorical sense) for the pleasure of the rational amoungst us, to make us feel superior, and to put our own irrational, imperfect ways behind us, if only for a short time. It seems that this 'joy' we get from it is simply flown under the banner of 'defeating' the hatred and evil of Fred Phelps and co. Hatred that grows a thicker shell whenever this happens. This is why I see it as anti-intellectual, as it feeds the emotional beast inside of us, the same beast that pumps out religious rhetoric. The Louis Theroux documentary on the Phelps family, in which he spoke to them in a rational and un-emotional style, let us into the inner workings of the minds of these people. In a way that is never achieved through simply throwing a beer bottle at their homophobic cries. The mindset of these people, and their soul (real or not), I realised, was more fascinating than many scientific wonders championed by rational scientists like Dawkins. Maybe if we all try and defeat Islamism, and Phelps, by ideology, rather than harsh words and superior attitutes (Superior attitutes which are justified!), we may get somewhere in this mess of a planet. But simply going 'religion is crap and useless' whenever a young kid picks up a flag of the Caliphate, is only going to play into the polarised world Bush and Bin Laden are working on. The majority of your post I respect. Your absolutist 'no and no' is part of the problem I see here.

13th August 2007, 11:05 AM	#15
juniper_ann Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 260	Originally Posted by Ladewig It is more rational to decide that in a system of justice, the magnitude of the punishment should be proportionate to the magnitude of harm caused to innocents. Unlike stealing, consensual adult homosexuality does not harm innocent people, therefore killing them is both unjust and irrational. You assume here that the material is more important than the internal, spiritual. If you assume the opposite, then setting a bad example for a person is a lot more harmful than just relieving the person of mere things...or for that matter, than sending the innocent person to heaven.