i'd take china instead of islam any day!

[jverne]

Edit: suddenly three news posts popped up in the last two minutes ...
This response (Was) to atomic piggy

I do care when stupid people in Islamic countries abuse Islam.
I mean I care when they oppress people to begin with, even if they don't use Islam to their support.
I care more when they think they can use Islam to their support because if the idea that Islam is a justification for their act then everything the Islamist movement has worked for will go to vain and reform will never happen.

See, that's an internal issue in our own countries

on the other hand, should I not care when your country lead a war against my country and invade it??


Maybe you have some evidence that I don't. I'm sure it's debatable, though, I'm not in a position to debate it. What I do know is that it is possible for someone to start having homosexual thoughts because of some outside stimuli. So you can't say that all gays are born that way.

If someone has homosexual thoughts then I care about him, not by allowing him to perform the act .., but by helping him overcome it.
It's a mental issue; if someone is having thoughts of suicide, should you just let him do it???? or help him overcome it??!

We don't allow sex outside marriage; and there's no such thing as a gay marriage.
If the act does happen, well too bad,
We don't go around to check if people are gay, but we don't allow the practice to be public.
It's just the law, and just like any law; follow it and you'll be safe. (not that's this law is implemented anywhere .. )

oh man you're a riot.

let me get this straight, you care about people being oppressed but at the same time you believe in an oppressive ideology...riiiight :angel:


it doesn't really matter if homosexuality is a genetic trait or not. it's like people who like smaller cars instead of caravans, it's a personal thing.
so people who like small cars or red paint should be helped in overcoming their wishes.
seriously, you're a true ****up man, the koran was shoved up your ass too many times!

well you do check women if they are dressed correctly.

 

[RjD]

so people who like small cars or red paint should be helped in overcoming their wishes.
seriously, you're a true ****up man, the koran was shoved up your ass too many times!

Please, be kind to our friend and do not use offensive terminology. After all, it is not his fault.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Yeah, that was a bit harsh.

 

[hasan]

Hasan, that would be okay if Islamic society was something a person could "opt out" of.

Allow me to explain. If a person A is born in an Islamic society but does not agree with regulations of sexual life imposed on basis of opinion of a deity which is not yet proved to exist, it would be fair to allow A to opt out of this religion, just as you can opt out of Christian religion (which also imposes regulations based on an unproven and fairly silly premise). The idea here being that if person does not harm you, you should not harm him, even if he does not believe share all of your ideas and values.

However, it is not possible to opt out of Islam. this is considered a capital offense punishable by death.

This in fact means that in Islamic country one does not get a chance to leave the religious social circuit (it is punishable). Even more, someone born within such a society does not have much choice about whether he should be a believer in Islam and follow all of its supernaturally-motivated rules
(if one choses not to, he can be punished by death, according to Islamic tradition)

This means that your societies, even when not run by murderous fanatics seeking to sabotage and terrorize foreign countries, are very repressive towards free thought and self-expression when it comes to your own citizens (funny fact, Christians used to be like that some 300-500 years ago).

Think of it this way - you can openly be a conservative Muslim in Europe and lead the life you like, but you can not openly be an atheist or agnostic in Pakistan and have a lifestyle you like (well, one could try, but that will leave him two options - emigration or death).

So it appears you, not "teh west" , is prone to forcefully imposing your values on others.

I'll start from the bottom.
There's a limit to what you can openly be in the west. I don't think one can openly doubt the validity of the Holocaust for example. There are laws against that.

You can openly be a Muslim in the west (I appreciate this, btw), but you can also be openly a Christian or Jewish in an Islamic society.

Right, as I understand, getting out of Islam is considered a capital crime by the majority of opinions; even if it's an individual case.

Maybe you think that this is something that is likely to happen often. I think not.
and that's not really what we think of when we think about freedom.
Religion to us is not like it is to you. Your society is secular in every sense of the word. Ours is not. Religion is the main part of our identity. So I guess that's why leaving Islam is not viewed as a personal choice as much as it is viewed as abandoning the community. It's one of the ways to protect the identity of the society; although definitely not the only one, because an identity that protects itself by sheer force is a weak one and is certainly to vanish in a short time.

Like I said, that's not how we perceive freedom.
There are many things that freedom can mean; reducing it to homosexuality is very stupid imo.
There are three main big red-lines in Islam for freedom; you only share one of them with us.
1. Blood: i.e. illegal blood shed. (there is a legal "blood-shed", such as killing a murderer) I think all societies have this as a red-line.
2. Sex: e.g. prostitution, sex-outside-marriage, etc (I'm not sure if other eastern societies consider this a red-line on freedom)
3. Islam: e.g. ridiculing Islam or making any public campaign against it, etc.

#1 is out of the question, of course.
I think disagreeing with #2 is stupid.
#3 I can understand why you would disagree. I don't think I can convince you on it.

 

[Kyorisu]

3. Islam: e.g. ridiculing Islam or making any public campaign against it, etc.

But mummy he made fun of me.

I'll start from the bottom.
There's a limit to what you can openly be in the west. I don't think one can openly doubt the validity of the Holocaust for example. There are laws against that.

Not so much an issue of freedom as opposed to people being complete dicks and ignoring an event we know took place. All fine and dandy if you keep it to yourself but spreading lies and disinformation about history is utterly stupid.

 

[hasan]

And why is that? Religious and non religious people get ridiculed all the time and so do many countries and brands of product. Hell everything is ridiculed for some reason eventually. You may as well tolerate it, turning a blind eye is far easier than caring about what people have to say about Islam.

Right, in your country no one can stop you from ridiculing Islam.
Having it happen within an Islamic country is a totally different business.

Trust me, nobody here wanted us to invade Iraq, Tony Blair and George Bush broke international law when they did it and they should both be put on trail.

Right, that's why Bush got re-elected.
Do you think I'm stupid? Lots of people supported the invasion. OK, maybe less people do now, but they still did back then.

*checks law, reads the bit about gay marriage* wow, your right, gay marriage does not exist.

I'm talking in an islamic context.

Your not allowed to have sex in public here either,

That's not what I meant.
btw, why are you not allowed so?

 

[hasan]

it doesn't really matter if homosexuality is a genetic trait or not. it's like people who like smaller cars instead of caravans, it's a personal thing.

comparing homosexuality to car type/color preference is just plain dumb.

sexuality does affect other people; it affects this thing called the structure of society.

 

[Kyorisu]

Right, in your country no one can stop you from ridiculing Islam.
Having it happen within an Islamic country is a totally different business.

The difference being in an Islamic country they don't want you opposing them in anyway. You are being controlled.

Right, that's why Bush got re-elected.
Do you think I'm stupid? Lots of people supported the invasion. OK, maybe less people do now, but they still did back then.

Lies and disinformation can be very effective tools to convince the public to agree with your views.

That's not what I meant.
btw, why are you not allowed so?

Because society considers it a private act. That and protect the kiddies and what not.

sexuality does affect other people; it affects this thing called the structure of society.

And the structure of society changes over time.

 

[hasan]

Lies and disinformation can be very effective tools to convince the public to agree with your views.

such as convincing them that gayness is perfectly ok, or that evolution is an undeniable scientific fact.

Because society considers it a private act. That and protect the kiddies and what not.

How come this is not backwards now??
and protect children?? protect them from what? from observing people practicing their freedom? do you want to protect them from freedom???

And the structure of society changes over time.

Right, it changes due to these ideas of free-for-all sex and stuff like that. This change can be devastating.

 

[hasan]

The difference being in an Islamic country they don't want you opposing them in anyway. You are being controlled.

No, theoretically you can oppose the gov't any way you want (althu practically that hasn't happened much in history). What you can't oppose is the principles and foundations of the state.

 

[Kyorisu]

such as convincing them that gayness is perfectly ok, or that evolution is an undeniable scientific fact.

It is okay what's your point? I see nothing wrong with a same sex couple as long as it doesn't harm me in anyway.

How come this is not backwards now??
and protect children?? protect them from what? from observing people practicing their freedom? do you want to protect them from freedom???

/snicker. No you protect the kiddies from seeing sexual acts because they are not of a mature age to be seeing such things. Hurrr. Don't try and argue our form of freedom as to fit the definition 100% because it doesn't, but at least it's one up on Islams.

Right, it changes due to these ideas of free-for-all sex and stuff like that. This change can be devastating.

In the end everything sorts itself out. It is not okay to be afraid of change.

No, theoretically you can oppose the gov't any way you want (althu practically that hasn't happened much in history). What you can't oppose is the principles and foundations of the state.

And yet I could if I so wished. I couldn't be bothered doing so but no one would stop me.

 

[hasan]

It is okay what's your point? I see nothing wrong with a same sex couple as long as it doesn't harm me in anyway.

My point is that the media convinced you that such is the case.

/snicker. No you protect the kiddies from seeing sexual acts because they are not of a mature age to be seeing such things. Hurrr.

What does maturity have to do with it? I'm not convinced.

In the end everything sorts itself out. It is not okay to be afraid of change.

Does it?? I think the structure of society always decays without constant social reform. It doesn't just sort itself out.

 

[Kyorisu]

My point is that the media convinced you that such is the case.

No it didn't. Are you Australian? Have you been living here for the past 50 years? Do you have any clue about the media coverage spanning that period? No? Then you are not qualified to make such broad statements. I'm a very logical person that sees nothing wrong about same sex couples.

What does maturity have to do with it? I'm not convinced.

Read my edit.

Does it?? I think the structure of society always decays without constant social reform. It doesn't just sort itself out.

/shrug.

 

[hasan]

Don't try and argue our form of freedom as to fit the definition 100% because it doesn't, but at least it's one up on Islams.

So you feel that sex in public should be allowed and there should be no laws to "protect" children from seeing sexual acts?

 

[Kyorisu]

So you feel that sex in public should be allowed and there should be no laws to "protect" children from seeing sexual acts?

Huh where did I say that? Frankly free sex would be awesome but no it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[hasan]

Frankly free sex would be awesome but no it shouldn't be allowed.

you don't get it.
I want you to explain to me why it shouldn't be allowed.
What exactly do you want to "protect" the children from? don't tell they're not mature .. you have to explain why, from basic principles.

 

[Kyorisu]

you don't get it.
I want you to explain to me why it shouldn't be allowed.

It you want to know there's a very powerful tool called google that will find that information for you. I see no reason why I should find this information for you. It wouldn't benefit me in anyway and has little bearing on my arguments, as it was started by another person.

 

[RjD]

There's a limit to what you can openly be in the west. I don't think one can openly doubt the validity of the Holocaust for example. There are laws against that.

Well, let us not conflate all the countries of Europe + USA into one singular West. (When i use this "west" thing, I do it ironically, and use "lolcat spelling" to indicate that.)

You can openly be a Muslim in the west (I appreciate this, btw), but you can also be openly a Christian or Jewish in an Islamic society.

ARGUMENT DODGE FAIL.

My part of argument was about agnostics and atheists, not Christians (who also catch some flack in Muslim countries).

So, what would be a fate of a person born Cristian in a Muslim country and then decided to become an open atheist? (We know what is the fate of a person born Muslim in a Muslim country and gone any-other worldview )

In the more decent Western countries, one CAN be a holocaust denier. and will be considered a nutjob who fails at science, which is true for all holocaust deniers). One should be free to be a harmless nutjob.

Right, as I understand, getting out of Islam is considered a capital crime by the majority of opinions; even if it's an individual case.

Maybe you think that this is something that is likely to happen often. I think not.

It does not matter, if changing person's mind about his religion has fatal consequences, this person is dramatically unfree in his choices.

Imagine a society which has a code to kill all people converting to Islam, sparing only those who are born by Islamic parents (born Muslim - okay, converted from "Treirreligion" - kill). Now the people in it are not free, because the can not change their minds about "Treirreligion" and become Muslims.

and that's not really what we think of when we think about freedom.

So, you resort to an old tactic - slippery definition.

In order to claim your society is as free as ours, you claim that you are free to alter the VERY DEFINITION OF FREEDOM so that your society fits your definition of "free".

I guess American slaverunners should have used this tactics in the past. "My black workers are free, because my definition of freedom is so particularly bent"

Religion to us is not like it is to you. Your society is secular in every sense of the word. Ours is not. Religion is the main part of our identity.

That is the problem. Your code of conduct and so-called "identity" are based on completely unfounded claims. Two of them. see above.

So I guess that's why leaving Islam is not viewed as a personal choice as much as it is viewed as abandoning the community.

Abandoning community, in your case, equals high treason.

And in most civilized countries it does not, one can loathe European cultural continuum and still live and work in Europe, just like the European conservative Muslims do.

although definitely not the only one, because an identity that protects itself by sheer force is a weak one and is certainly to vanish in a short time

Mind naming any others?

1. Blood: i.e. illegal blood shed. (there is a legal "blood-shed", such as killing a murderer) I think all societies have this as a red-line.
2. Sex: e.g. prostitution, sex-outside-marriage, etc (I'm not sure if other eastern societies consider this a red-line on freedom)
3. Islam: e.g. ridiculing Islam or making any public campaign against it, etc.

First and foremost, it is not the "red lines" I have problem with.
It is the rationalization behind them. In case for Islamic societies, the "red lines" are based on unproven claims. Same with any society with non-secular code of conduct (sometimes non-secular ethics try to weasel their way into secular law, see USA Religious Right) .

Second, more civilized states prefer no killing murderers unless in self-defense.

I think disagreeing with #2 is stupid.

Why so, may I ask (please refrain from argumentations based on religious belief. Some evidence, please.)

And, one more thing. As far as I know, teh westurn countries do not enforce their belief systems on "teh Muslim wurld". Even USA, who are currently behaving like jackarses, are not bent on converting Iraqi to Christianity, AFAIK.

 

[hasan]

It wouldn't benefit me in anyway and has little bearing on my arguments,

no, it has big baring to the arguments.

I find your idea of gayness and adultery being totally ok, I find it outrageous. However I find myself unable to explain to why such is the case, because I don't understand what are your "first principles" for arguing these kinds of issues.

 

[RjD]

sexuality does affect other people; it affects this thing called the structure of society.

Depends on the context. and the exact case
People engaging in sex in the public would draw much attention (naked bodies and stuff). This will cause traffic jams and accidents Also, by having me witness their nudity and intercourse, the hypothetical public bangers in question actually draw me into their sex life as participant, to which I gave no consent. And this infringes on MY FREEDOM, My freedom not to be a part of some random ppl's sex life.

Theese are the only worthy reasons for public sex/nudity ban that I can think of.

I do not see how two (or more) same-sex ppl engaging in sexual intercourse privately can hinder the society. Please provide sound evidence, or case dismissed.

 

[Kyorisu]

no, it has big baring to the arguments.

I find your idea of gayness and adultery being totally ok, I find it outrageous. However I find myself unable to explain to why such is the case, because I don't understand what are your "first principles" for arguing these kinds of issues.

I'm easily amused. My argument has very little to do sex it's got to do with freedom. Now I may not be 100% free to do as I wish but I'm substantially more free than a person living in a Islamic country.

 

[hasan]

In order to claim your society is as free as ours,

I never claimed that.
I'd like to push the "leaving-islam" issue aside for now and focus on the "homosexuality" issue first, because that's what the OP brought up first and it's what I find outrageous .. I mean I don't understand your point on this one really ...
where as the "leaving-islam" thing I don't think I can convince you about it.

 

[hasan]

I'm easily amused. My argument has very little to do sex it's got to do with freedom. Now I may not be 100% free to do as I wish but I'm substantially more free than a person living in a Islamic country.

pfft, it has everything to do with sex. (assuming we're on the same page here ....)
why is homosexuality ok but children watching sex is not ok??? sure it's not because sex is bad, right?

 

[Kyorisu]

I don't understand why you find homosexuality outrageous. In fact claiming it's outrageous deeply offends me.

pfft, it has everything to do with sex. (assuming we're on the same page here ....)

No you misunderstand.

My viewpoint: We are free to be gay.

Your viewpoint: We are not free to be gay.

Ergo my society is more free than yours in regards to homosexuality. We are talking about freedom of sexuality something Islam lacks. On an upper layer this discussion has more so to do with what your freedoms are based on rather than the subject we are talking about.

 

[hasan]

you don't seem to understand my point.

I have to repeat my #139 with an addition here:

I find your idea of gayness and adultery being totally ok, I find it outrageous. However I find myself unable to explain to why such is the case, because I don't understand what are your "first principles" for arguing these kinds of issues.
If you explain to me why sex-in-public is not okay (in your terms), and why children watching sex is not ok (again, in your terms, in your first principles) then maybe I can understand more about your of thinking and maybe I can formulate an argument against gayness from your first principles.

I hope that makes some sense.

 

[Kyorisu]

I find your idea of gayness and adultery being totally ok, I find it outrageous.

Does not compute. Your problem here is grammar.

Anyway I don't see how you could create an argument against gayness from my thoughts on the matter. I've already told you why I think being gay is perfectly fine as it is.

 

[RjD]

I never claimed that.
I'd like to push the "leaving-islam" issue aside for now and focus on the "homosexuality" issue first, because that's what the OP brought up first and it's what I find outrageous .. I mean I don't understand your point on this one really ...
where as the "leaving-islam" thing I don't think I can convince you about it.

1)You claimed that you have other "idea of freedom", thus our concept of freedom does not apply to you. Thus, you were engaging in the very rhetorical game of shifting definitions.

2) putting aside the "leave Islam issue" would be unfair. It is the very crux of the issue.
If you are uncomfortable with it - well, no one is comfortable with it

3) There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a "disease".
There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to the society.

Your part of argument implies that it is inherently wrong because it is so written in a scripture.
I find your part of argument wrong, because it is based on at least two unproven premises (see above)

 

[Kyorisu]

Good to see I can rely on RjD to bring out the irrefutable facts. Hasan show me the evidence that being gay is harmful to anyone.

 

[RjD]

If you explain to me why sex-in-public is not okay

I did. See above. #140 http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2591641&postcount=140

and why children watching sex is not ok

The same reason 4 year olds should not serve in the army. The same reason you don't get to vote in elections untill certain age.

Children are both physically and mentally incompetent to deal with concepts involved.
When they develop to the point of being capable to deal with the complexity of human sexuality, it will be ok for them to watch porn.

P.S.: Some adults never reach such state of competence

 

[hasan]

The game here was never proving that Islam allows the same freedoms as those of the west.

Imagine someone coming to you and saying: dude the US forbids sex in the public! this is so barbaric I'd rather live in the china than America.

and that's just plain dumb. and that is why I started posting here .. sort of.

 

[Kyorisu]

Children are both physically and mentally incompetent to deal with concepts involved.
When they develop to the point of being capable to deal with the complexity of human sexuality, it will be ok for them to watch porn.

P.S.: Some adults never reach such state of competence

A stage by which they have matured, but hasan seemingly has no concept of what maturity is and why it would affect such matters as people rooting in public.

The game here was never proving that Islam allows the same freedoms as those of the west.

Quite right. It's been proving Islam doesn't have the same freedoms as the west and China and that we have more of them than Islam does. I actually haven't read the OP so feel free to shoot me down here but that's been my angle.

 

[RjD]

The game here was never proving that Islam allows the same freedoms as those of the west.

Right, the game was more like proving thaT Islam doesn't have the same freedoms as the west and Islam allows less freedoms than CHINA!

Imagine someone coming to you and saying: dude the US forbids sex in the public! this is so barbaric I'd rather live in the china than America.

But in China, it is forbidden, too! You failed at analogy...

 

[RjD]

A stage by which they have matured, but hasan seemingly has no concept of what maturity

I believe he does. It is just that it is very different from our concept of maturity

 

[RjD]

PS:

Good nighttime reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/30294

 

[Kyorisu]

Well I did say mature age as to imply they are not old enough to understand such things.

 

[hasan]

I did. See above. #140

hmm .. I think I was talking to someone else, but ok ..

#140:
People engaging in sex in the public would draw much attention (naked bodies and stuff). This will cause traffic jams and accidents Also, by having me witness their nudity and intercourse, the hypothetical public bangers in question actually draw me into their sex life as participant, to which I gave no consent. And this infringes on MY FREEDOM, My freedom not to be a part of some random ppl's sex life.

Theese are the only worthy reasons for public sex/nudity ban that I can think of.

oh really? is that really why you think public sex should be banned?
why don't you get the freedom to choose whether you should see someone's face or not. maybe we should ban fat people from walking on the street in case someone doesn't want to see fat people. or maybe we should prevent disabled people from going to schools and universities so that they don't disturb other students.

Therefor your argument is not valid.

 

[hasan]

The same reason 4 year olds should not serve in the army. The same reason you don't get to vote in elections untill certain age.

Children are both physically and mentally incompetent to deal with concepts involved.
When they develop to the point of being capable to deal with the complexity of human sexuality, it will be ok for them to watch porn.

lol, children don't know how to serve in the military; that's why they shouldn't do it.
as for voting, there's no reason to prevent a 10 year old from voting. whether you value his opinion or not is just your personal opinion. it shouldn't be laws.
(p.s. I'm arguing from reductio here ..)

What concepts involved in sex do children need to deal with? and what if they don't know how to deal with it??!

sorry it's obvious for you but not for me, where I come from, children can watch sex all they want.

 

[Kyorisu]

hmm .. I think I was talking to someone else, but ok ..


oh really? is that really why you think public sex should be banned?
why don't you get the freedom to choose whether you should see someone's face or not. maybe we should ban fat people from walking on the street in case someone doesn't want to see fat people. or maybe we should prevent disabled people from going to schools and universities so that they don't disturb other students.

Therefor your argument is not valid.

Your are denser than I thought. Please refer to the part where I mentioned our level of freedom does not have to fit the definition just like Islams doesn't. We have many freedoms and lack many others. Those we lack are usually not beneficial at all and would only cause chaos.


Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(philosophy)

 

[hasan]

Your are denser than I thought. Please refer to the part where I mentioned our level of freedom does not have to fit the definition just like Islams doesn't. We have many freedoms and lack many others. Those we lack are usually not beneficial at all and would only cause chaos.


Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(philosophy)

eh?
I think you are the dense one, arguing so boldly without any hesitation that homosexuality is perfectly ok. without providing any reason why, other than "just because".

 

[Kyorisu]

You just proved my point. I've argued there's nothing wrong about homosexuality because there is no evidence whatsoever that it is harmful to anyone. If there's nothing harmful about homosexuality why pray tell would you ban it?