|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Sometimes I feel like some parties in the West are actually more fanatical in their opposition to Muslims than most Muslims are in their opposition to the West. |
Agreed.
There also seems to be an element of America that would love to impose a TALIBAN regime in the United States for morality.
I've heard more than my share of 'kill the doctors who kill babies' garbage...hey, why not just imprison pregnant teenagers? Technologically examine for life in the stomach as they enter malls, and throw them in the clink? At least you don't have to murder doctors.
Then there is the entire militant fundamentalist...build up weapons to 'defend against the government from getting our bibles and guns'. That entire nutcase element of the U.S. is about as equivalent to the al quaida hiding in caves... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| You keep bringing up slavery, for instance, but slavery was the norm throughout an immense part of history. |
Slavery still exists in the Muslim world.
| Fox wrote: |
I do judge Muslims by:
1) The historic norms of the time period they lived in (when talking about the past). |
Why judge by that? All it will bring is trivial conclusions, such as.....
(a) the British Empire began in barbarous times and the British engaged, therefore, in barbarism
(b) Islamic theocracies existed in barbarous times and Islamic theocracies, therefore, engaged in barbarism
What's informative about that? It is mere tautology. I realize this is a slight digression, but I just wondered, why judge Muslims, or anyone or anything, by the time period they lived in? What knowledge, that isn't tautologous (such as "Europeans lived in times of slavery, and they had slaves"), can possibly occur?
To ask it in a different way.....
Socrates (300BC) v Hitler (1930s)?
Ancient Greece had slaves, but Socrates was an Enlightenment rationalist. How can your system of ethics possibly have any discussion? Or is it your position that no discussion can even take place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Why judge by that? |
Because the best way to draw reasonable, meaningful conclusions about a society is by considering them within the global context of their time period.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
All it will bring is trivial conclusions, such as.....
(a) the British Empire began in barbarous times and the British engaged, therefore, in barbarism
(b) Islamic theocracies existed in barbarous times and Islamic theocracies, therefore, engaged in barbarism
What's informative about that? |
Not much, but that's also not the sort of conclusion considering societies within their historic contexts leads to. In fact, one uses historic context specifically to avoid such meaningless conclusions, because what constituted barbarity at the time is different than what constitutes barbarity now, and as such those societies weren't necessarily barbarous at all. Only when you give no consideration to the norms of the time at all do you classify almost the entire history of the human race as barbarous as you just did by implication.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Socrates (300BC) v Hitler (1930s)?
Ancient Greece had slaves, but Socrates was an Enlightenment rationalist.
|
Which makes Socrates exceptional far beyond a man equivalent to him would be in the modern day, which I would say is an obvious truth, but a truth one can only reach if you accept historical context is an important consideration.
Last edited by Fox on Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You keep bringing up slavery, for instance, but slavery was the norm throughout an immense part of history. |
Slavery still exists in the Muslim world.
| Fox wrote: |
I do judge Muslims by:
1) The historic norms of the time period they lived in (when talking about the past). |
Why judge by that? All it will bring is trivial conclusions, such as.....
(a) the British Empire began in barbarous times and the British engaged, therefore, in barbarism
(b) Islamic theocracies existed in barbarous times and Islamic theocracies, therefore, engaged in barbarism
What's informative about that? It is mere tautology. I realize this is a slight digression, but I just wondered, why judge Muslims, or anyone or anything, by the time period they lived in? What knowledge, that isn't tautologous (such as "Europeans lived in times of slavery, and they had slaves"), can possibly occur?
To ask it in a different way.....
Socrates (300BC) v Hitler (1930s)?
Ancient Greece had slaves, but Socrates was an Enlightenment rationalist. How can your system of ethics possibly have any discussion? Or is it your position that no discussion can even take place? |
Allow me to get Socratic for a moment and ask, "Then by what yardstick would you judge?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Because the best way to draw reasonable, meaningful conclusions about a society is by considering them within the global context of their time period.
|
Like I said, this can only draw tautological (and thereby morally-agnostic) statements......
* Muhammad had a 6-year old wife because people in Muhammad's time had 6-year old wives
No knowledge results here, only tautological statements and the walking-away from the table. The only ethics one can discuss is that within one's own time.
| Fox wrote: |
| Not much, but that's also not the sort of conclusion considering societies within their historic contexts leads to. In fact, one uses historic context specifically to avoid such meaningless conclusions, because what constituted barbarity at the time is different than what constitutes barbarity now, and as such those societies weren't necessarily barbarous at all. Only when you give no consideration to the norms of the time at all do you classify almost the entire history of the human race as barbarous as you just did by implication. |
Better to judge human history as barbarous than morally-neutral
And at least I can use the term 'better' with some semblance of logical coherence. For you, there seems to be no such phenomena as 'barbarous' nor 'better'; there is only 'the time period'
| Fox wrote: |
| Which makes Socrates exceptional far beyond a man equivalent to him would be in the modern day |
You're contradicting yourself. You're applying current moral standards to the past and have reached a conclusion in favor of Socrates, which is wholly inconsistent with your view that one cannot do the same with the OE
| Fox wrote: |
| which I would say is an obvious truth but a truth one can only reach if you accept historical context is an important consideration |
Socrates being more moral than Hitler is only an obvious truth if one dispenses with moral relativism.
One cannot conclude, coherently, that Socrates was more moral than Hitler unless one divorces ethics from historical context. An "obvious truth" as you put it is something that, by definition, is divorced from any historical or other contamination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You keep bringing up slavery, for instance, but slavery was the norm throughout an immense part of history. |
Slavery still exists in the Muslim world.
| Fox wrote: |
I do judge Muslims by:
1) The historic norms of the time period they lived in (when talking about the past). |
Why judge by that? All it will bring is trivial conclusions, such as.....
(a) the British Empire began in barbarous times and the British engaged, therefore, in barbarism
(b) Islamic theocracies existed in barbarous times and Islamic theocracies, therefore, engaged in barbarism
What's informative about that? It is mere tautology. I realize this is a slight digression, but I just wondered, why judge Muslims, or anyone or anything, by the time period they lived in? What knowledge, that isn't tautologous (such as "Europeans lived in times of slavery, and they had slaves"), can possibly occur?
To ask it in a different way.....
Socrates (300BC) v Hitler (1930s)?
Ancient Greece had slaves, but Socrates was an Enlightenment rationalist. How can your system of ethics possibly have any discussion? Or is it your position that no discussion can even take place? |
Allow me to get Socratic for a moment and ask, "Then by what yardstick would you judge?" |
Well, we could start by saying that modern Islamic societies are still in a state of medieval primitivism (or that 'modern Islamic society' is an oxymoron) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Because the best way to draw reasonable, meaningful conclusions about a society is by considering them within the global context of their time period.
|
Like I said, this can only draw tautological (and thereby morally-agnostic) statements...... |
I don't know why you keep repeating this obviously false statement. You're not stupid, and it's a stupid thing to say, so what are you doing here?
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Not much, but that's also not the sort of conclusion considering societies within their historic contexts leads to. In fact, one uses historic context specifically to avoid such meaningless conclusions, because what constituted barbarity at the time is different than what constitutes barbarity now, and as such those societies weren't necessarily barbarous at all. Only when you give no consideration to the norms of the time at all do you classify almost the entire history of the human race as barbarous as you just did by implication. |
Better to judge human history as barbarous than morally-neutral |
This approach doesn't lead to judging human history as morally-neutral, it judges from a standpoint based on the norms of the time and draws conclusions about specific individuals and civilizations from there. Within any given era, there were barbarous and civilized nations based on the norms of the time.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| And at least I can use the term 'better' with some semblance of logical coherence. For you, there seems to be no such phenomena as 'barbarous' nor 'better'; there is only 'the time period' |
When the world is considered within its historic context, some nations do end up being "better" while others end up being "barbarous." So you can dispense with that idea.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Which makes Socrates exceptional far beyond a man equivalent to him would be in the modern day |
You're contradicting yourself. You're applying current moral standards to the past and have reached a conclusion in favor of Socrates, which is wholly inconsistent with your view that one cannot do the same with the OE |
No, I'm not contradicting myself. By the standards of his time, Socrates was immensely exceptional (moreso than if he were judged by the standards of today). By the standards of its time, the Ottoman Empire was religiously tolerant (moreso than if it were judgedd by the standards of today). If you can't see how that very basic systemology is entirely consistent and in fact almost identical, then I don't know what to say man. I find myself genuinely shocked and perplexed that someone would say those two statements constituted some sort of contradictory reasoning.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| which I would say is an obvious truth but a truth one can only reach if you accept historical context is an important consideration |
Socrates being more moral than Hitler is only an obvious truth if one dispenses with moral relativism. |
False. By considering historic norms of their respective times, in fact, you only end up concluding Socrates is even better than Hitler in this regard, because the standards of his time leave him shining even more brightly by comparrison.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| One cannot conclude, coherently, that Socrates was more moral than Hitler unless one divorces ethics from historical context. |
Actually one quite easily can, and I just did, in a coherent, patterned, easily understandable fashion. Socrates' remarkability is in part so profound because what you'd call "a more barbarous time," and Hitler's evil is in part so prominent because he came from what you'd call "a more civilized time." Their respective time periods serve to enhance their positive and negative ethical qualities rather than reduce them, making them more different rather than more similar. It's in how they defied the norms of their time that they're historically and ethically so significant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're on to it yet again, dmbfan. Of course he's a Muslim! Obama rhymes with Osama after all. It's a dead giveaway. 
The liberal media just won't admit the truth. Thank God (the Christian one) for Fox News. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're on to it yet again, dmbfan. Of course he's a Muslim! Obama rhymes with Osama after all. It's a dead giveaway.
The liberal media just won't admit the truth. Thank God (the Christian one) for Fox News |
Well, he said he is a Christian.........so he MUST be telling the truth.
Oh...does anyone wonder why his middle name was not really talked about much during his campaign? Perhaps it is because it's Hussein?
The liberal media can't admit to anything.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
You're on to it yet again, dmbfan. Of course he's a Muslim! Obama rhymes with Osama after all. It's a dead giveaway.
The liberal media just won't admit the truth. Thank God (the Christian one) for Fox News |
Well, he said he is a Christian.........so he MUST be telling the truth.
Oh...does anyone wonder why his middle name was not really talked about much during his campaign? Perhaps it is because it's Hussein?
The liberal media can't admit to anything.
dmbfan |
the right wing media are equally guilty. did you not notice that the similarities between the names of John Walker Lindh (the american taliban) and George Walker Bush were never brought up during his time in office, not even during the 2004 election campaign? shameful, shameful, shameful!! !! !! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You keep bringing up slavery, for instance, but slavery was the norm throughout an immense part of history. |
Slavery still exists in the Muslim world.
| Fox wrote: |
I do judge Muslims by:
1) The historic norms of the time period they lived in (when talking about the past). |
Why judge by that? All it will bring is trivial conclusions, such as.....
(a) the British Empire began in barbarous times and the British engaged, therefore, in barbarism
(b) Islamic theocracies existed in barbarous times and Islamic theocracies, therefore, engaged in barbarism
What's informative about that? It is mere tautology. I realize this is a slight digression, but I just wondered, why judge Muslims, or anyone or anything, by the time period they lived in? What knowledge, that isn't tautologous (such as "Europeans lived in times of slavery, and they had slaves"), can possibly occur?
To ask it in a different way.....
Socrates (300BC) v Hitler (1930s)?
Ancient Greece had slaves, but Socrates was an Enlightenment rationalist. How can your system of ethics possibly have any discussion? Or is it your position that no discussion can even take place? |
Allow me to get Socratic for a moment and ask, "Then by what yardstick would you judge?" |
Well, we could start by saying that modern Islamic societies are still in a state of medieval primitivism (or that 'modern Islamic society' is an oxymoron) |
Then you are engaging in exactly the same chronochauvinism by using the yardstick of modern Western societies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Fox, looks like these muslims are as tolerant (by your measure) as the tolerant muslims in the Ottoman Empire!
http://www.ucanews.com/2009/06/11/church-institutions-threatened-with-bomb-attack/
| Quote: |
LAHORE, Pakistan (UCAN) -- A Church center in Pakistan's cosmopolitan eastern city of Lahore has been threatened with a suicide bomb attack, one of a series of intimidating messages given to Christians as the country's security crisis worsens.
The threat was delivered on June 10 to a Christian woman who lives next to Rabita Manzil, the National Catholic Office for Social Communications, which includes the offices of the WAVE (Workshop Audio Visual Education) studio, Radio Veritas Asia's Urdu service and the Union of Catholic Asian News.
The woman said two masked men arrived on a motorbike without number plates.
"We know that you and those at the recording studio are Christians. We warn you to leave this area, embrace Islam, pay 1,500,000 rupees (US$18,750) or be ready to die in a suicide bomb attack. Inform your neighbors as well," she quoted the men as saying. |
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- Qur'an 9:29
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." -- Muhammad (Sahih Muslim 4294)
I'm sure it's just politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
