|
Main Paineframe posted:For some reason, there aren't really any instances of someone successfully forcibly imposing human rights reforms on a society without pairing it with all-new human rights violations or slaughtering massive numbers of innocent people. Some would probably suggest that it's just a No True Scotsman problem and that a true human rights reformer could accomplish it just fine, but it is the nature of humans to be imperfect, and since there is no perfect human rights reformer, I'm inclined to think that the whole approach is fundamentally flawed. Relying on a single dictator (even a domestic one) to impose justice and human rights from the barrel of a gun without the consent of the governed seems to inevitably involve flagrant injustice and massive human rights violations. The goals may be partially noble (although always mixed with plenty of horrible) but the results always seem to turn out horrific.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Can human rights be created in a country without some previous violent reform process? The answer is no. Politics is violence, the abolition of an old order will not happen without coercion. If you think the 'whole approach is fundamentally flawed', then you are in effect condemning the world to forever be shaped/burdened by the power structures that exist right now. Consent of the governed can only happen after those structures are removed, and only in those areas where they are removed by force. Had all progressives had your hand-wringing attitude throughout history, there wouldn't be a single democratic country in the world right now. Iceland?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Iceland?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
But enough about Islam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Can human rights be created in a country without some previous violent reform process? The answer is no. Politics is violence, the abolition of an old order will not happen without coercion. If you think the 'whole approach is fundamentally flawed', then you are in effect condemning the world to forever be shaped/burdened by the power structures that exist right now. Consent of the governed can only happen after those structures are removed, and only in those areas where they are removed by force. Had all progressives had your hand-wringing attitude throughout history, there wouldn't be a single democratic country in the world right now. So we should support the abolition of democratic policies, institute spectacularly violent secret police organizations, and sell the populace out as slave labor. And in return we get to force women to wear clothes we find more sexually appealing and murder them when they resist? Sounds like progess to me. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So we should support the abolition of democratic policies, institute spectacularly violent secret police organizations, and sell the populace out as slave labor. And in return we get to force women to wear clothes we find more sexually appealing and murder them when they resist? Sounds like progess to me. It sure did to Pahlavi....
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 09:40
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:This is actually not such a bad analogy, since there were a few reasonably prominent Catholic extremist movements running around overthrowing governments at the time; the Carlists come to mind. But A) the Know-nothings persecution of catholics never amounted to anything legally, and was limited to disorganized thuggery, and B) these people had some legitimate concerns, albeit entangled with racism, considering that the Pope you are alluding to was one of the shittiest assholes ever crapped out by the Vatican and more responsible than any other single religious leader for the putrid politics of the current-day Catholic church. This was a world before Hitler or Stalin - in fact, I think that Pius IX might have been one of the greatest villains known to civilization, at the time. In that context, an overreaction against Catholicism was more understandable, if not justified. Well, it's good to know that you're a loving idiot in general and just only ever talk about Islam.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So we should support the abolition of democratic policies, institute spectacularly violent secret police organizations, and sell the populace out as slave labor. And in return we get to force women to wear clothes we find more sexually appealing and murder them when they resist? Sounds like progess to me. Truly, these great modernizers have broken the back of radical Islam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So we should support the abolition of democratic policies, institute spectacularly violent secret police organizations, and sell the populace out as slave labor. And in return we get to force women to wear clothes we find more sexually appealing and murder them when they resist? Sounds like progess to me. I mean, take a big example here, Saudi Arabia. Support for that regime has, since it's inception, relied on the backing of religious authorities. There's always been a tension, but push comes to shove, both sides know they need the other. Suppose a big uprising occurs on such a scale such that the kingdom has to dissolve. Do you seriously think those religious authorities are just going to step down, throw up their hands and say 'well I guess we had a good run'?. No, they're gonna get their most devoted supporters to crush the opposition, because that's what entrenched interest do when they're threatened. If the opposition is ever going to win, yeah, it's gotta do shady poo poo. Because if it doesn't, it's going to lose to the other side. That's how civil wars work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
When ISIS and co. decry "the west", are they primarily against its secularism or its Christianity? Do they even make that distinction?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:When ISIS and co. decry "the west", are they primarily against its secularism or its Christianity? Do they even make that distinction? From experiences lot of people in the ME just assume everybody is Christian here, kind of like everyone just assumes everybody is Muslim in ME  I imagine ISIS wouldn't be the top of the list to understand the myriad of beliefs and cultures in "the West".
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:When ISIS and co. decry "the west", are they primarily against its secularism or its Christianity? Do they even make that distinction? The tradition is not to decry the West on the basis of religion at all, but its general debasement and perceived antipathy towards the Orient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Narciss posted:
I thought it was pretty much a way to make 7th Century Arabic cultural norms the equivalent of the word of God, which unrprisingly doesn't work so well in the 21st Century. Also, I know a lot of you hate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but her latest book "Heretic" is a lot more constructive on its criticism of Islam than "Infidel" or "Nomad", apparently the Arab Spring gave her a bit more hope that differences might be overcome. TheArmorOfContempt fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Islam is a cynical religion created by a warlord-wannabe and has been used to drive violent conquest since the time of it's creation. I honestly do not have much respect for it. and Christianity is a cynical religion created by the state bureaucracy of the Roman Empire to justify its continued existence, and has also been used to drive violent conquest since its creation
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:and Christianity is a cynical religion created by the state bureaucracy of the Roman Empire to justify its continued existence, and has also been used to drive violent conquest since its creation Hoooly poo poo, there's a slight difference that I think you're glossing over. The romans sure loved Jesus, it's not like they did anything that would show something other than full support for Christ and his followers at any point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:and Christianity is a cynical religion created by the state bureaucracy of the Roman Empire to justify its continued existence, and has also been used to drive violent conquest since its creation I'm not sure I've ever heard the phrase "christianphobe" used here, even though the (numerous) threads on it are far more critical and insulting of the religion than any thread on Islam. It's strange how Islam seems to be currently singled out as the only belief system that isn't to be questioned or debated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Hoooly poo poo, there's a slight difference that I think you're glossing over. The romans sure loved Jesus, it's not like they did anything that would show something other than full support for Christ and his followers at any point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea quote:The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire Yes, the Romans did love Jesus, if you think this is some sort of iceburn uhhhhhh icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Christianity was way cool for a couple centuries of persecution before going mainstream, sell outs. Islam pretty much took hold in a single human life time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:and Christianity is a cynical religion created by the state bureaucracy of the Roman Empire to justify its continued existence, and has also been used to drive violent conquest since its creation Say co-opted instead of created and maybe you could have a point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Say co-opted instead of created and maybe you could have a point. Pre-nicene Christianity was so internally fractured and divergent it shouldn't really be called a single religion or equated with modern christianity. Modern christianity, AKA the religion 99% of people ITT are discussing, is a Roman invention
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
It is Important and Obvious to make requisite condemnations of Christianity on threads that have the potential to turn critical of Islam. Otherwise, racism. Torquemada! The Crusades! Jerry Falwell! I Hate Sunday School!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Pre-nicene Christianity was so internally fractured and divergent it shouldn't really be called a single religion or equated with modern christianity. Modern christianity, AKA the religion 99% of people ITT are discussing, is a Roman invention Your argument could just as easily be twisted around to say "oh the crusades? That wasn't 'real' Christianity, that was a Roman invention.  " You can't say "well that Roman brand WAS Christianity" and ignore the existence of numerous Christian sects that existed at the time and were not a driving force behind the crusades.
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Your argument could just as easily be twisted around to say "oh the crusades? That wasn't 'real' Christianity, that was a Roman invention. So just like everything else post 325. Also the Romans definitely disapproved of the Fourth Crusade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So just like everything else post 325. Other people may have different arguments, but mine has been that Islam is a worse religion than Christianity (in terms of "which would I rather exist in the world today?") because it's Holy Book, handed down word-for-word from God himself, explicitly supports rape, murder, forced conversion, slavery, and all kinds of nasty stuff. Did Christians do all that too? Yes. I think it's much easier for those things to happen when a fifth of the world follows a religion whose unquestionable holy book supports them. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It is Important and Obvious to make requisite condemnations of Christianity on threads that have the potential to turn critical of Islam. Otherwise, racism. Don't we have threads where we talk endless poo poo about Christianity? Outside of the need to protect Muslim minorities within Western nations against right-wing bigots I don't understand any other reason to be so protective of Islam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea I was more just confused about the fact that you were just ignoring the centuries of persecution before Constantine found the lawd. Islam pretty much took hold immediately.  The brown area was all controlled by Muslims during Mohammad's lifetime. The Romans weren't Christian until three centuries after Christ's death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Don't we have threads where we talk endless poo poo about Christianity? Outside of the need to protect Muslim minorities within Western nations against right-wing bigots I don't understand any other reason to be so protective of Islam. I'd rather be a Muslim in the US than a Muslim in Syria or Yemen or just about any Muslim-majority country. Muslims seem to do quite well in the US - not sure how much protection they need beyond that which we should extend to everyone. It seems like once they are free of the backwardness that comes with Islamic interference in governance, they enjoy better outcomes than the average schlub. "American Muslims are Well-Educated 67% of American Muslims have a Bachelor's degree or higher 44% of Americans have a Bachelor’s degree or higher3 The Variance for Advanced Degrees is even greater. One in ten American Muslim HH has a physician / medical doctor [ ... ] American Muslims are Affluent U.S. Average income is $42,158 per year (U.S. Census 2000) 66% of American Muslim HH's earn over $50,000 / year 26% of American Muslim HH's earn over $100,000 / year" http://www.allied-media.com/AM/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'd rather be a Muslim in the US than a Muslim in Syria or Yemen or just about any Muslim-majority country. Muslims seem to do quite well in the US - not sure how much protection they need beyond that which we should extend to everyone. It seems like once they are free of the backwardness that comes with Islamic interference in governance, they enjoy better outcomes than the average schlub. I meant more, it is a liberal reflex, and a good one to feel the need to jump to the defense of minorities given some of the awful poo poo America has done. I like to think those times are past us, but I realize there is a significant portion of the population that if there weren't those of us who went "you're terrible and no you can't kill all the gays, muslims, blacks, etc" then they would do exactly that. Basically, the kind of poo poo that happens to minorities in majority Muslim nations...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:I meant more, it is a liberal reflex, and a good one to feel the need to jump to the defense of minorities given some of the awful poo poo America has done. I like to think those times are past us, but I realize there is a significant portion of the population that if there weren't those of us who went "you're terrible and no you can't kill all the gays, muslims, blacks, etc" then they would do exactly that. Basically, the kind of poo poo that happens to minorities in majority Muslim nations... You really think so? Criminal law in the US is robust enough already, and does far more to deter these people than stern finger-wagging from normal people. The US homicide rate is very high, but when you break it down there are remarkably few killings based on generic racism or other bigotry, compared to killing for economic or relationship reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You really think so? Criminal law in the US is robust enough already, and does far more to deter these people than stern finger-wagging from normal people. The US homicide rate is very high, but when you break it down there are remarkably few killings based on generic racism or other bigotry, compared to killing for economic or relationship reasons. I don't think it is the finger-wagging so much, but more of the presence of differing opinions. Unsurprisingly, the most insane poo poo comes about when crazy people get together and form a little bubble of crazy. In the West many of these people are forced to interact with many people who all have very divergent views. Even when these people get together with fellow crazies and talk about doing something crazy they will quickly find many groups there to oppose them. I feel that honor brigades with a Christian flavor would very much be a thing in the U.S. if fundamentalists represented a much larger portion of the population. Especially with issues like hatred for homosexuality that various conflicting extremist groups have to rally around, when in the past they might of been at one another's throat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'd rather be a Muslim in the US than a Muslim in Syria or Yemen or just about any Muslim-majority country. Muslims seem to do quite well in the US - not sure how much protection they need beyond that which we should extend to everyone. It seems like once they are free of the backwardness that comes with Islamic interference in governance, they enjoy better outcomes than the average schlub. I would rather be black in the US compared with black majority countries but that doesn't mean African Americans have nothing to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Don't we have threads where we talk endless poo poo about Christianity? Outside of the need to protect Muslim minorities within Western nations against right-wing bigots I don't understand any other reason to be so protective of Islam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I would rather be black in the US compared with black majority countries but that doesn't mean African Americans have nothing to complain about. Bad comparison. Muslims in the US earn more and have better educations than the average, and do not come from a legacy of enslavement, like blacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Is it worth bringing up the point that muslims are people and that Islam is a religion and that it's entirely possible to criticise one without demonising the other? A lot of folk seem to use the two terms interchangeably and it really muddies the waters in debates like this. This has probably been covered I guess. I haven't read anything prior to the last 2 pages of the thread, because seriously, who has time for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I was wondering but could anyone give a good summary on how besides just the obvious oil money wahabism became such a potent force. Did not the failure of secular forces itself help bring this on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I was wondering but could anyone give a good summary on how besides just the obvious oil money wahabism became such a potent force. Did not the failure of secular forces itself help bring this on? We sold out the Hashemites in Hijaz after convincing them to waste their strength breaking free of the Ottomans. Remember Lawrence of Arabia? He was the Wests liason, and was a true believer in what he was doing. So we hosed him hard too. After that the Sauds held the holy cities and the West held the rest of the Arab region, more or less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Christianity was way cool for a couple centuries of persecution before going mainstream, sell outs. Islam pretty much took hold in a single human life time. Did it, though? I'm not so sure; I'd like to see evidence for your claim beyond 'quran says so'
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:I thought it was pretty much a way to make 7th Century Arabic cultural norms the equivalent of the word of God, which unrprisingly doesn't work so well in the 21st Century. Actually, no. It was in direct opposition to Tribal Arabic cultural norms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
tsa posted:I'm not sure I've ever heard the phrase "christianphobe" used here, even though the (numerous) threads on it are far more critical and insulting of the religion than any thread on Islam. It's strange how Islam seems to be currently singled out as the only belief system that isn't to be questioned or debated. Oh please, this is hot nonsense. There is a ton of criticism of Islam and it's followers and it is vastly more venomous even if we forget the context that Christians are less likely to be the victims of discrimination, hate crimes and violence as a result of their religion in or by western nations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Actually, no. Could you recommend any sources on tribal arabic cultural norms from 6th and 7th century contemporaries who are not attempting to push a religious narrative?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 08:21
|
|