|
Black Baby Goku posted:It has nothing to do with "values" Mhm. Doesn't matter what you wish to call it. First Amendment exercises aren't up for approval.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:Private arbitration is actually one of the cornerstones the US legal system is built on. The overworked court system would really rather you handle small disputes on your own. It doesn't matter if your private arbitrator is the local priest, a mutual friend, whatever. As long as both parties consent to the arbitrator the courts are just happy to offload those torts onto the arbitrator. Hmm, why do you think this would matter, especially to women?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Honestly the concept of separate laws for separate religions is loving retarded. It's completely incompatible with secularism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's completely incompatible with secularism. The people on this board think its a good idea to let women and men be arbitrated by a religion, whose views are incompatible with secularism, and western society in general, and that is somehow BETTER than going to the actual court system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Hmm, why do you think this would matter, especially to women? First, I was specifically responding to if private arbitration is fit for western society, and it clearly is given the lengthy history private arbitration has in the US legal system. Second, if your point is that sexist communities can pressure women into doing things they'd rather not do, then I'm aware of that but I don't see what you're getting at with this? burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:First, I was specifically responding to if private arbitration is fit for western society, and it clearly is given the lengthy history private arbitration has in the US legal system. It isn't fit for modern western society, especially in regards to the religion in question, and my point is how fair could private Sharia Law arbitration be to women? Use your loving brain instead of trying to wring your hands about being as PC as possible. Its pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:It's not fit for western society. Let it stay in tribal third world hellholes. It literally predates the U.S. in American jurisprudence. You've probably never noticed because its mostly confined to weird insular groups like Mennonites, Amish, Puritans, Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Why even bother having a legal system at all when we could have all matters be decided by our rightful masters, international capital?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It literally predates the U.S. in American jurisprudence. You've probably never noticed because its mostly confined to weird insular groups like Mennonites, Amish, Puritans, Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, etc. Cool, so something that predates something else, and is bad, in all ways, especially with how religion treats women, children, ect, especially backwards loving religions and sects whatever you want to call it. Let them just do their own thing and say gently caress it? God, are you mentally unwell?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:It isn't fit for modern western society, especially in regards to the religion in question, Private arbitration will continue to exist so long as tort law exists and the number of judges in the world is finite. Throwing a fit over it won't change that. quote:and my point is how fair could private Sharia Law arbitration be to women? Whether or not a Sharia Law court is more or less sexist than your average US judge, if a woman feels that a Sharia Law court would be sexist against her she is totally free to decline, just as she is free to accept if she feels the arbitrator would be less racist against her than a given white judge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Totally free to decline, ignoring the major social pressures Muslim women are under to conform and obey their male family members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
"Who's to say a religious court is going to be more conservative than a secular court" -guy that doesn't understand religion
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Totally free to decline, ignoring the major social pressures Muslim women are under to conform and obey their male family members. It's like he is tripping over his two leftist feet to defend sharia law
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Totally free to decline, ignoring the major social pressures Muslim women are under to conform and obey their male family members. Okay, so are you in favor of abolishing contract law? You can raise the exact same objection to contracts and yet I don't recall anyone saying we need to do away with contracts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Cool, so something that predates something else, and is bad, in all ways, especially with how religion treats women, children, ect, especially backwards loving religions and sects whatever you want to call it. Let them just do their own thing and say gently caress it? God, are you mentally unwell? It can't stay somewhere else if it's been here all along. It's literally so deeply ingrained it's become completely invisible. These statements are all wrong, btw, except that we should just let people do their own thing. gently caress it, welcome to America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Okay, so are you in favor of abolishing contract law? You can raise the exact same objection to contracts and yet I don't recall anyone saying we need to do away with contracts. Lets equate religious courts with contract law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Okay, so are you in favor of abolishing contract law? You can raise the exact same objection to contracts and yet I don't recall anyone saying we need to do away with contracts. Yes you shouldn't be forced into private arbitration generally, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
If muslims don't want to live under sharia law they shouldn't sign the contract. If McDonalds employees want to sue their employer when the fry cooker explodes they shouldn't have signed the contract.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
^^^if the cooker explosion didn't involve negligence on McDonald's part I agree.Black Baby Goku posted:Lets equate religious courts with contract law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
This hand wringing over Sharia law isn't exactly on topic. I would agree that it's not a good thing to have people settling their disputes at private religious courts but given that "they're gonna impose Shariah law!" gets used all the time as a right wing scare tactic maybe instead of making GBS threads up a thread on Islamophobia ya'll could start a new discussion thread specifically on private religious arbitration. It's certainly a topic worth debating. DrProsek posted:Okay, so are you in favor of abolishing contract law? You can raise the exact same objection to contracts and yet I don't recall anyone saying we need to do away with contracts. As far as I know there actually have been some issues raised with the growing tendency for firms to write clauses into contracts demanding private arbitration to settle disputes. It's become a way of avoiding the stricter (and much more public) oversight of the legal system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Lets equate religious courts with contract law. No, let's equate private arbitration with contract law considering the two are both major aspects of tort law. Thug Lessons posted:Yes you shouldn't be forced into private arbitration generally, obviously. Okay? When did I imply otherwise? Helsing posted:As far as I know there actually have been some issues raised with the growing tendency for firms to write clauses into contracts demanding private arbitration to settle disputes. It's become a way of avoiding the stricter (and much more public) oversight of the legal system. Absolutely! I would totally agree that mandatory arbitration clauses shouldn't be enforceable. A person should always have the right to go "nope, we're settling this in front of a US Judge, not your friend Steve". Trying to do away with private arbitration entirely would be very hard (and discussion about that would probably warrant its own thread) and specifically banning religious arbitration would be impossible without a constitutional convention, but mandatory arbitration clauses are absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Honestly the concept of separate laws for separate religions is loving retarded. Interesting you should mention that because Christian arbitration is a thing but no one bats an eye at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
There is already a thread discussing private arbitration and whether it is literally white Sharia law: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750637
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This hand wringing over Sharia law isn't exactly on topic. I would agree that it's not a good thing to have people settling their disputes at private religious courts but given that "they're gonna impose Shariah law!" gets used all the time as a right wing scare tactic maybe instead of making GBS threads up a thread on Islamophobia ya'll could start a new discussion thread specifically on private religious arbitration. It's certainly a topic worth debating. I disagree, as it is obviously and blatantly one of the main tactics used by Islamophobes in America today. Nobody is trying to ban the practice of Jewish arbitration, even though many aspects of traditional Jewish Law are clearly misogynistic by modern American standards, for example the requirement of male consent to divorce. And yet Oklahoma has banned Sharia, despite having only like, 5,000 Muslims. The ban was immediately struck down btw, for obviously violating the Constitution. Why this hand wringing all of a sudden? The same reason the Republican Governors are lashing out at refugees. In the current climate of fear, everyone's looking for a way to target Muslims specifically. Opposing Sharia Courts is just another dog whistle. Squalid fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:There is already a thread discussing private arbitration and whether it is literally white Sharia law: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750637 *reads title* Yeah this sounds like some good poo poo, we definitely need that and it's totally legit
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
As soon as somebody who isn't a repugnant bigot starts complaining about Sharia, I'll start listening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:As soon as somebody who isn't a repugnant bigot starts complaining about Sharia, I'll start listening.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Arbitration's main purpose is to get rid of class action lawsuits, which it does work at doing, and which is really bad. This has already been mentioned, in the thread on arbitration, which already exists. Go post there about it. Re: Redistricting, It's honestly kind of astonishing how even enforcing a fair democracy has become a partisan issue, or more specfiically, a socially recognized as a partisan issue. But there's got to be some point at which it gives, they're going to have to gerrymander more and more just to stay in power, which is only going to make them look more and more desperate. It's obviously highly unethical, underhanded and deceptive, so their hypocrisy about how liberals are unfair to them or whatever is only going to look more and more self-serving. How long can that continue? SedanChair posted:I had been inclined to think "let the nuts have their day and get it over with" but I am not sure what the mechanism would be to cause it to be "over with" just because Trump made it to the general and lost. These freaks aren't going away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:As soon as somebody who isn't a repugnant bigot starts complaining about Sharia, I'll start listening. Dismantling Sharia as it is implemented is, like, a principal goal of every Islamic feminist movement. There is, however, a lot of debate as to whether Sharia is inherently patriarchal and oppressive, or if it is this way in practice because of the men that implement and rule on the law. As I understand it, it's way more flexible than one would assume, considering conservative attitudes to it. But also I am not a Muslim woman living somewhere that implements it. Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Christianity and Judaism have both had systems of religious law and managed to secularize eventually, believing Islam can't despite being very similar to its Abrahamic predecessors is just dumb. Political Islam is political, it's driven by political forces and the solution must be political too. For the most part it didn't even exist until after World War II.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Christianity and Judaism have both had systems of religious law and managed to secularize eventually, believing Islam can't despite being very similar to its Abrahamic predecessors is just dumb. Political Islam is political, it's driven by political forces and the solution must be political too. For the most part it didn't even exist until after World War II. Are you saying Christianity and Judaism are no longer politicized? Have you ever been to a church? 
Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Christianity and Judaism have both had systems of religious law and managed to secularize eventually, believing Islam can't despite being very similar to its Abrahamic predecessors is just dumb. Political Islam is political, it's driven by political forces and the solution must be political too. For the most part it didn't even exist until after World War II. Then holy poo poo are we gonna have to wait a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
The problem began a very long time ago. Back in the early times of recent human civilisations (I'm talking 4000+ years ago) people were policed by communal values. Breaking of communal values meant one was abandoned by the community and left to fend for themselves. Humans work best in smaller communities. A global community can never work since it is hard to empathise with people you have never met. A great example of humanity at its best was Ancient Athens. When democracy was first created, everyone in the city met once a month to vote on every policy that the city would employ for that month. People who committed crimes or gained too much political power were exiled from the city. Funnily enough, that society began to fall when the Athenians got greedy and decided to invade other city states to increase their own already prosperous nation. As sad as it is to say, I honestly don't think social mixing is a good idea; especially when certain cultures have agressive beliefs and tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Manic X posted:The problem began a very long time ago. Back in the early times of recent human civilisations (I'm talking 4000+ years ago) people were policed by communal values. Breaking of communal values meant one was abandoned by the community and left to fend for themselves. Humans work best in smaller communities. A global community can never work since it is hard to empathise with people you have never met. that's multiculturalism (social mixing) and its a spectacular failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Why even bother having a legal system at all when we could have all matters be decided by our rightful masters, international capital? Libertarianism.txt
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:that's multiculturalism (social mixing) and its a spectacular failure. "Other cultures get to survive"="multiculturalism is a failure" Also I suspect that in your case the term "social mixing" is a thin disguise for "race mixing."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:As soon as somebody who isn't a repugnant bigot starts complaining about Sharia, I'll start listening. That only works when complaining about sharia doesn't automatically make you consider someone a repugnant bigot, hth. Squalid posted:Why this hand wringing all of a sudden? The same reason the Republican Governors are lashing out at refugees. In the current climate of fear, everyone's looking for a way to target Muslims specifically. Opposing Sharia Courts is just another dog whistle. It's a bad idea regardless of whether assholes also happen to oppose it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Manic X posted:As sad as it is to say, I honestly don't think social mixing is a good idea; especially when certain cultures have agressive beliefs and tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Other cultures get to survive"="multiculturalism is a failure" Some cultures aren't compatible with other ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
blowfish posted:That only works when complaining about sharia doesn't automatically make you consider someone a repugnant bigot, hth. Oh not at all. Once we've gotten the "are you a bigot" question out of the way, we can move on to "are you a sucker being manipulated by bigots." For example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali passes the first test, but fails the second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:01
|
|