West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: IslamInevitable on August 18, 2009, 09:28:03 PM
-
Seriously man tryin to appease the public with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8208315.stm
They are committing a slow genocide, a slow extermination of a whole nation... bastards
-
Well judging by your name we know your stance, which'll be far from objective.
-
The possible projected outcome of this continued situation is a shrinking Palestinian population and a growing Israeli population that can in the future, more easily absorb the remaining Palestinians into the Israeli state as second-class citizens, and/or up to the point where a significantly smaller and less populated Palestinian State will be created.
Until then, the West Bank and Gaza may be destined to remain massive ghettoes and breeding grounds for terrorism among an oppressed people. This situation will indirectly (or directly) work in favour of the ‘Greater Israel’ policy by providing the justification for military reprisals that can thin the Palestinian population and provide the incentive for more to leave. Other nations will remain officially and genuinely sympathetic and continue to accept Palestinian refugees, thereby also indirectly (or directly) aiding the ‘Greater Israel’ policy by streamlining the process with the necessary humanitarian touch.
-
Well judging by your name we know your stance, which'll be far from objective.
damn... thats crazy idea
-
Well judging by your name we know your stance, which'll be far from objective.
damn... thats crazy idea
-
I'm not anti-sematic or something but I agree with the palastina.
It was a selfish act, the western world felt guilty about the genocide of the jews so they gave them there holy land.
By bullying the palastines till they left ::)
-
I'm not anti-sematic or something but I agree with the palastina.
It was a selfish act, the western world felt guilty about the genocide of the jews so they gave them there holy land.
By bullying the palastines till they left ::)
YEAH PALESTINIANS ARE GOOD PEOPLE
-
ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
-
Well judging by your name we know your stance, which'll be far from objective.
I'm sorry I didnt stand with the Nazi's during the holocaust (in principle not temporal) and I wont stand with the nazi like offensive against Palestinians, there are jews that hold this "stance" with more fervor if a name means anything, a concience would ofcourse....
side question are you white? you probably are
The possible projected outcome of this continued situation is a shrinking Palestinian population and a growing Israeli population that can in the future, more easily absorb the remaining Palestinians into the Israeli state as second-class citizens, and/or up to the point where a significantly smaller and less populated Palestinian State will be created.
yo kid are you writin the manifesto for the Likud party, if you arent, then you need to send em your application, thats the sweetest venom i've tasted in a minute...
I'm not anti-sematic or something but I agree with the palastina.
It was a selfish act, the western world felt guilty about the genocide of the jews so they gave them there holy land.
By bullying the palastines till they left ::)
thank you brother and no you dont have to start that question with a self examining statement of anti semitism (thats social conditioning), you have a natural concience which inherently doesnt like wrong.
ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
bro im a put it like this, there are jewish books in islamic libraries, in spain jews flourished and contributed to science immensly and then when the spanish inquisition took off, they took off to muslim lands to safety... where you can find them still...
if the jews were in charge of muslims as we see them today they are exterminating them, and when the muslims were in charge of muslims they lived fine
-
ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
Jews and Muslims have lived together in peace for years...there is no hate on either side.
-
The possible projected outcome of this continued situation is a shrinking Palestinian population and a growing Israeli population that can in the future, more easily absorb the remaining Palestinians into the Israeli state as second-class citizens, and/or up to the point where a significantly smaller and less populated Palestinian State will be created.
yo kid are you writin the manifesto for the Likud party, if you arent, then you need to send em your application, thats the sweetest venom i've tasted in a minute...
Good to see you recognise. But I don't have to write for the Likud party; its just how I see the situation being played out. Whichever way you look at it, objectively or subjectively, the Palestinian people are on the losing end, the whole situation is geared against them. What future is there for these Palestinian kids? Your best chance for a better life is to get the fuck out of Palestine. If the intent of the Israeli defence force is to protect the Israeli people from terrorism through these counter-strikes, the indirect (or direct?) result and outcome favours Ben-Gurion’s ‘Greater Israel’ policy by thinning the Palestinian population and providing an incentive for Palestinians to leave.
-
bro im a put it like this, there are jewish books in islamic libraries, in spain jews flourished and contributed to science immensly and then when the spanish inquisition took off, they took off to muslim lands to safety... where you can find them still...
if the jews were in charge of muslims as we see them today they are exterminating them, and when the muslims were in charge of muslims they lived fine
actually sephardic jews of the iberian peninsula were originally from north africa. they came migrated to spain and portugal when the moors conquered these lands.
also jews have always lived in palestine, but just not in the numbers as it is today.
those that were always living there look identical to palestinians
-
^I've heard that arguement before how when the Muslim Empire was around (the Ottomons? the Caliph?) they were accepting of other religions living in their territory. The catch is, yes other religions were allowed to live in Islamic lands, but they had to pay more tax, a special tax that was levied onto unbelievers living in Islamic lands. Also other rules like if a Church was next to a Mosque and the Church was in need of maintenance the Christians were not allowed to maintain it or repair the Church so it had to be left to slide into disrepair. In this regard, adherents to other religious faiths were kinda second class citizens. Also, if you were not a Muslim but living in an Islamic country, then Islamic law would not apply to you, neither the punishments but also neither the rights. It was all a far cry from Western secular government today, or even modern authoritarian Islamic government today. But word, over the Inquisition, the Jews wouldve had it safer in Islamic lands.
Anyway, the Israel/Palestinian conflict is not rooted in religious friction. Jews and Muslims all pray at Abraham's Tomb, facing the same area. Religion is not at the heart of the problem. The reason Israel treats the Palestinians the way it has/does is because it wants land, so that it may consilidate the Jewish/Israeli people with State sovereignty, and with what Hitler called 'Lebensraum', that is, 'living space'.
Everybody possesses the Ego.
http://www.youtube.com/v/6PQ6335puOc&hl=en&fs=1&
-
At the end of the day, religion is existential angst.
This is why it is worthless, yet worth so much to us.
Illuminated leaders like the Muslim Caliph Saladin recognised this truth:
Nothing. Everything
-Saladin, when asked what Jerusalem is worth.
http://www.youtube.com/v/XxxUbrzVBt0&hl=en&fs=1&
-
YO ILLUMINATI CLIQUE
first of all nigga, listen up.. i'm speakin on this subjectively, and just to let you know there is no objectivity in socio-political matters, your textbook doesnt set the objective standard..
and the special tax, hell yea there were taxes, and tell your white grand daddy to stop takin most of my money in taxes, there are taxes everywhere, they didnt have to pay zakat like muslims, so they had their own tax..
you speakin like your white ancestors nigga, and thats why you so conflicted within you, when you see your ancestors commit wrong after wrong and you speak with a cold tone at it, like the palestinians are disposable, like your mayflower ancestors thought of the natives...
punk ass niggas like you man put a bad taste in my mouth
-
Hahaaaaa...now why get all emotional with it?
Ok then, so you believe that 'there is no objectivity in socio-political matters'. But then, let me ask you this; do you think your average Israeli settler is thinking objectively or subjectively?
Really, your average fanatical Israeli settler only gives a damn for his own subjective perspective. The Ego. Me. Me. Me.
You may want to look up the meaning of the word 'objective'. Of course, there is an objective way of looking at the world my son, it is essential, as well as the subjective. I'm not arguing that either is correct, rather it is best to consider matters from a variety of perspectives. Now considering the subjective perspective of your average Palestinian kid, of course, its a tragic and unfair situation for these kids, there are no excuses and if you look back, I never actually offered any or try to justify the Palestinians being 'disposable', it was more rather a calm lament on the human condition.
And do not let my cold tone upset you, I assure you, beneath the blackened and gnarled exterior of this heart beats a love and empathy for humankind.
"...why? Because I never rejected him!"
http://www.youtube.com/v/RGR4SFOimlk&hl=en&fs=1&
-
i mean absolute objectivity son... and really the definition entails uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices...
any thought that a human conjours into his conciousness is influenced by his previous experiences = a prejudice
-
Ok good, you recognise there are downsides to both objective and subjective points of view:
any thought that a human conjours into his conciousness is influenced by his previous experiences = a prejudice
^thats the subjective
i mean absolute objectivity son... and really the definition entails uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices...
^the objective
Thats why its essential to consider both perspectives, how you going to only consider socio-political matters from a subjective perspective? You can, but then you are limiting your understanding.
-
i dont think you understand what i'm saying....
im sayin that a human brain is incapable of seperating himself of his own prejudices... he can go far, but he'll never be completely objective... therefore he will always have an element of subjectivity with him...
obviously you think you have achieved a perspective of objectivity, but you fail to understand and probably have a defense mechanism for is that you are still very much subjective in that objective opinion, because you are still basing it on prejudices, - you may claim not - but you are and deep within your unconcious their influence exists!
-
Well I agree with that, we can take our objectivity far, but we may never be totally seperated from our personal experience. Thats the human condition.
But the question is, does it matter? Maybe all we need to do is 'go far', that is, be objective to an attainable utilitarian extent
For instance, in the West, we have laws on anti-discrimination, etc. These laws can't bring about the total end of discrimination or prejudice, but we can at least take it so far; so that people of all races, colours and creeds can, to an extent live together with some dignity, self-determination and peace.
Now for instance, in a society that champions subjectively-based social values like Israel (where Arabs can't marry Israelis or have certain jobs, where Israeli kids write messages on bombs to drop on Palestinian and Lebanese kids, etc) or Malaysia (where Muslim women can get whipped for drinking alcohol), individual self-determination and freedom is limited as a result of a lack of objective understanding and conscience within the culture and society. This is not only characteristic of such nation-States, but also such individuals who champion subjective thinking without tempering that centric-subjective thought with objective understanding: from your average Islamo-centric internet blogger, to your average Zionist-centric settler.
You won't last with religion
It deals with division: ALLAH is all
United we stand son, divided we fall
http://www.youtube.com/v/6KZR773X_JU&hl=en&fs=1&
-
ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
Jews and Muslims have lived together in peace for years...there is no hate on either side.
are u fuckin shrooming dogg?
lol look at palestine and israel...
obviously there is hate
-
ISRAEL IS A VERY STRICT AND SELFISH COUNTRY THOUGH...
-
ITS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE IF YOU ARE BORN THERE YOU STILL ARE NOT CONSIDERED A CITIZEN UNLESS YOU'RE A JEW
-----
YOU'RE BORN IN US... YOUR A US CITIZEN DISREGARDS TO UR RELIGION...
YOU'RE BORN IN SUADI ARABIA...YOUR A SAUDI CITIZEN DISREGARDS TO UR RELIGION...
YOU'RE BORN IN JAPAN...YOUR A SAUDI CITIZEN DISREGARDS TO UR RELIGION...
-
HAVING THIS LAW... IN ISRAEL WHERE NON-JEWS CANNOT BE CITIZENS...
PUTS PEOPLE AT A DISADVANTAGE...
RUSSIANS, ETHIOPIANS, NON-JEWS CANNOT BE CITIZEN...
THEREFORE THEY CANNOT JOIN THE GOVERNMENT... MAKE AND CHANGE THE RULES
-
Well I agree with that, we can take our objectivity far, but we may never be totally seperated from our personal experience. Thats the human condition.
Now for instance, in a society that champions subjectively-based social values like Israel (where Arabs can't marry Israelis or have certain jobs, where Israeli kids write messages on bombs to drop on Palestinian and Lebanese kids, etc) or Malaysia (where Muslim women can get whipped for drinking alcohol), individual self-determination and freedom is limited as a result of a lack of objective understanding and conscience within the culture and society. T
what you are purporting is essentially a nihilistic skeleton of a existentialist ideology... but all forms of practiced ideologies are judged by their own course of existence; in your case you state uS to be that example where, although the reality contradicts it, "freedoms" are afforded to everyone and according to you these are the products of objective idealism.
in an existentialist perception, this freedom of attaining pleasure is suitable to everyone's carnal appetite... so as long as that persuit doesnt violate another's persuit;
but in your terms if you look at it in a utilitarian perspective its a society thats doomed to implode, cuz the utility of an object is derived from its moral worth, since no moral code is standard as that would be infringing on people's freedom, this spirit of nihilism has led to multiple conflicts that are bound to pour over eventually into an implosion -> dysfunctional america which is the true america and full of contradictions, and the one you paint is only applicable to you!
and please dont be a cross cultural judge and state that muslim societies suffer due to the lack of these objective idealism... its only due to the european invasion of those lands that those conflicts arose, and european invasion was incited due to its own ideology of objective idealism which you fervently espouse...
-
ITS A PARADOX THEY CALL REALITY
NON RELIGION IS A RELIGION AS LONG AS YOU CONGREGATE AND ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER ON THIS ESPOUSED BASIS
-
ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
Jews and Muslims have lived together in peace for years...there is no hate on either side.
are u fuckin shrooming dogg?
lol look at palestine and israel...
obviously there is hate
man, stop looking at the through the NEWS.
before ISRAEL jews and muslims LIVED together for YEARS and YEARS in peace...
and in most parts of the world, they still do live together in peace.
btw..Palestine=1 country..cant talk for all muslims.
-
C'mon now, you know as I do: Islam is also a moral code! However, As I eluded to before, with the Saladin video, is that indeed within Islamic society at times in history (and today aswell in alot of modern Islamic authoritarian societies) there is also an objective approach to ideology and morals in these societies, and religion does not necessarily promote intolerance (it is my view that the true message within alot of religions is an approach to objective understanding). But my point was that in whatever societies where this is lacking, where there is no broad objective understanding and consideration in approach to freedom, morality, etc and where subjective views take priority; the result is that utilitarianism is often much more brutal and oppressive of the minority.
-
ITS A PARADOX THEY CALL REALITY
NON RELIGION IS A RELIGION AS LONG AS YOU CONGREGATE AND ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER ON THIS ESPOUSED BASIS
Which not many people actually do mind you. Rather, people who don't profess to any established religion get together for all manner of reasons that involve the actual living of life.
The issue is not someone's belief, rather their degree of objectivity, tolerance and humility in the face of actually knowing nothing.
Most religions, including Islam, believe God is knowable, but also vastly unknown.
Nothing. Everything.
In this sense, maybe you can understand something of aethism and secularism.
-
yo illuminati, we gotta have this conversation face to face, cuz you convolute your words way too much for me to understand what you mean...
-
Excellent discussion, especially the back and forth between Islaminevetable and Illuminati Clique....
....I want to copy and paste and speak on a few of the things mentioned..
^I've heard that arguement before how when the Muslim Empire was around (the Ottomons? the Caliph?) they were accepting of other religions living in their territory. The catch is, yes other religions were allowed to live in Islamic lands, but they had to pay more tax, a special tax that was levied onto unbelievers living in Islamic lands. Also other rules like if a Church was next to a Mosque and the Church was in need of maintenance the Christians were not allowed to maintain it or repair the Church so it had to be left to slide into disrepair. In this regard, adherents to other religious faiths were kinda second class citizens. Also, if you were not a Muslim but living in an Islamic country, then Islamic law would not apply to you, neither the punishments but also neither the rights. It was all a far cry from Western secular government today, or even modern authoritarian Islamic government today. But word, over the Inquisition, the Jews wouldve had it safer in Islamic lands.
This is actually a valid point to make, and I think it was correctly stated. I may be a Muslim, but a very unorthodox one. For example I can not support the Shariah (Islamic Law as worked out by the 9th century Imams and as understood by Sunni scholars today) for many reasons...
...One reason I can't be down with Shariah is because of what you stated above. They want to say that there is freedom of religion according to Shariah Law yet there is not. Because a Muslim can apostate, and as you mentioned Christians can not repair old churches or biuld new ones. Also, the only recognized religions in Shariah law are the 3 Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Judaism and Christianity; therefore atheists, Hindu's, Buddists, etc. often have their rights unprotected under Shariah law.
What is the point of worship if it is forced? This renders religion and all acts as meaningless if it is forced upon the people. This is one of my big problems with the Shariah as it was developed in the 9th Century by the 4 Major Sunni Islamic Scholars. Much of what they legislated comes from Hadith and contradicts the Qu'ran itself! ...read these verses from the Qu'ran and it is clear Shariah contradicts...
There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient. 2:256
"Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers." 10:99.
Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. We have prepared for the transgressors a fire that will completely surround them. When they scream for help, they will be given a liquid like concentrated acid that scalds the faces. What a miserable drink! What a miserable destiny! 18:29
Say, "I do not ask you for any money. All I seek is to help you find the right path to your Lord, if this is what you choose." 25:57
This is a reminder; whoever wills, let him choose the path to his Lord. 73:19
For those among you who wish to advance, or regress. 74:37
This is a reminder: whoever wills shall choose the path to his Lord. 76:29
-
For instance, in the West, we have laws on anti-discrimination, etc. These laws can't bring about the total end of discrimination or prejudice, but we can at least take it so far; so that people of all races, colours and creeds can, to an extent live together with some dignity, self-determination and peace.
This can be a topic for another day, but why do we need anti-discrimination laws? You could just say that we should be punished for the harm we do to other people and be done with it.
You don't have to force affirmative action for minorities to be successful. Look at the great success Jews, Arabs, Asians, etc. have had in the West. They stick together and pool their resources and spend within the community and therefore they become successful even more quickly then whites in many cases.
Most anti-discriminatory laws only had to take place because of previous laws that endorsed discrimination; such as slavery and Jim Crow laws.
-
ITS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE IF YOU ARE BORN THERE YOU STILL ARE NOT CONSIDERED A CITIZEN UNLESS YOU'RE A JEW
-----
YOU'RE BORN IN US... YOUR A US CITIZEN DISREGARDS TO UR RELIGION...
YOU'RE BORN IN SUADI ARABIA...YOUR A SAUDI CITIZEN DISREGARDS TO UR RELIGION...
YOU'RE BORN IN JAPAN...YOUR A SAUDI CITIZEN DISREGARDS TO UR RELIGION...
Word. Good point. I can't believe the world accepts this in today's time. A law so discriminatory that unless if you are a non-Jew born in Israel you are not a citizen. Straight up bullshit!!
-
ITS A PARADOX THEY CALL REALITY
NON RELIGION IS A RELIGION AS LONG AS YOU CONGREGATE AND ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER ON THIS ESPOUSED BASIS
Which not many people actually do mind you. Rather, people who don't profess to any established religion get together for all manner of reasons that involve the actual living of life.
The issue is not someone's belief, rather their degree of objectivity, tolerance and humility in the face of actually knowing nothing.
Most religions, including Islam, believe God is knowable, but also vastly unknown.
Nothing. Everything.
In this sense, maybe you can understand something of aethism and secularism.
Very interesting exchange between the two of you right here.
I agree with brother Islaminevitable that the world has a very limited view of what constitutes "religion". Because in Islam we translate religion to mean "way of life". Therefore, the average American who works and watches football with his buddies and goes drinking at a bar every weekend is practicing his own religion. The bar is like the alter upon which he worships, the local football team he projects his hopes, frustrations, judgments, the coach is like a Preacher or Imam... local team good/ far away team bad.. national anthem before every game, local country good, far away country bad... and he does his work to maintain this lifestyle. There are many parallels that can be made. So in this way I agree with my dear brother Islaminevitable.
However, I also agree with Illuminati Clique and I think he makes an excellent point, in focusing on not the religion, but rather the role of subjectivity which leads to intolerance and potentially genocide of an opposing religion or race.
-
For instance, in the West, we have laws on anti-discrimination, etc. These laws can't bring about the total end of discrimination or prejudice, but we can at least take it so far; so that people of all races, colours and creeds can, to an extent live together with some dignity, self-determination and peace.
This can be a topic for another day, but why do we need anti-discrimination laws? You could just say that we should be punished for the harm we do to other people and be done with it.
You don't have to force affirmative action for minorities to be successful. Look at the great success Jews, Arabs, Asians, etc. have had in the West. They stick together and pool their resources and spend within the community and therefore they become successful even more quickly then whites in many cases.
Most anti-discriminatory laws only had to take place because of previous laws that endorsed discrimination; such as slavery and Jim Crow laws.
Of course we need non-discriminatory laws, people have needed law since the days of Solomon. Sure we can simply say, "lets just punish people for the wrong they commit to others" but then of course you have to define what is a wrong! We need to define 'harm', because whats the point in punishing that person if the wrong wasn't defined or if he had no knowledge that such a wrong was a wrong. There are really two types of law: Natural law (informed by religious and spiritual values, personal values, ethics, philosophy and norms, etc) and then there is the law of the State.
Slavery became a crime when the State (aka the Leviathan) made it legally a crime.
Theres a reason for affirmative action aka positive discrimination, because lets say we make the law equal. That is, make the law non-discriminatory, because remember back in ye old times it was discriminatory and in some places it still is. Now lets say we make the law equal, however it would do nothing but preserve the status-quo: because just simply practising equality, will not necessarily result in equality. If two people start off in incomparable situations, treating them similarly will merely perpetuate this, , furthur accentuating the differences. Anyway, word, this is getting into a different topic, but the reason I raised it was that, IslamInevitable said that we can never have total objectivity, as we can never be totally separated from our prejudices, I agreed, but cited anti-discrimination law as an example of where objectivity (and the law is supposed to be objective) can take us so far and all that is needed is for us to take it so far so that people can, to a degree, live together and co-exist.
-
ITS A PARADOX THEY CALL REALITY
NON RELIGION IS A RELIGION AS LONG AS YOU CONGREGATE AND ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER ON THIS ESPOUSED BASIS
Which not many people actually do mind you. Rather, people who don't profess to any established religion get together for all manner of reasons that involve the actual living of life.
The issue is not someone's belief, rather their degree of objectivity, tolerance and humility in the face of actually knowing nothing.
Most religions, including Islam, believe God is knowable, but also vastly unknown.
Nothing. Everything.
In this sense, maybe you can understand something of aethism and secularism.
Very interesting exchange between the two of you right here.
I agree with brother Islaminevitable that the world has a very limited view of what constitutes "religion". Because in Islam we translate religion to mean "way of life". Therefore, the average American who works and watches football with his buddies and goes drinking at a bar every weekend is practicing his own religion. The bar is like the alter upon which he worships, the local football team he projects his hopes, frustrations, judgments, the coach is like a Preacher or Imam... local team good/ far away team bad.. national anthem before every game, local country good, far away country bad... and he does his work to maintain this lifestyle. There are many parallels that can be made. So in this way I agree with my dear brother Islaminevitable.
However, I also agree with Illuminati Clique and I think he makes an excellent point, in focusing on not the religion, but rather the role of subjectivity which leads to intolerance and potentially genocide of an opposing religion or race.
The point I'm trying to convey with that Saladin video (Nothing. Everything) and with that last post, is that, most religions or paths of spirituality cite God as being both knowable, but also vastly unknown. Zen is all about being totally ungraspable through explanation. Also I'm sure it says something about this in Koran aswell, I was read the Koran as a kid, but I can't remember verses or anything. But I remember it was something like there are 99 names of Allah that are known to man, but there is also Gods true name, which is only known to God. Therefore the Koran too acknowledges that God is knowable but also vastly unknowable. To me, as I see it: that footballer dude you were using as an example and aethists for that matter, are simply people who cope quite well with this unknowable facet of God. In simply living life and not knowing God, and knowing that they know nothing of God they are incrediblly spiritual and religious by not being spiritual or religious. Because God can only comprehend and understand God, only God knows God's true name; all the other names are imperfect and this is why secularism, aethism and objectivity for that matter are essential in this world. Essential. Essential. Essential. *echo fades out*
And none of y’all will ever know God’s real name
-'A Bullet Never Lies' (off Ill Bill's Moment of Reprisal, Vinnie Paz's verse)
-
yo illuminati, we gotta have this conversation face to face, cuz you convolute your words way too much for me to understand what you mean...
Islam is also a moral code. So is Islam also destined to "implode"?
To say America is dysfunctional implies it dosn't function. It functions.
-
Sure we can simpy say, "lets just punish people for the wrong they commit to others" but then of course you have to define what is a wrong! Whats the point in punishing that person if the wrong wasn't defined or if he had no knowledge that such a wrong was a wrong. The world is much more complicated than just assualt, murder, battery, etc There are really two types of law: Natural law (informed by religious and spiritual values) and the law of the State.
Slavery became a crime, when the State (aka the Leviathan) made it legally a crime.
This is drifting off into another subject, but since you don't seem to mind, I can explain further what I meant above. The reason I said that the law should simply be "harm done to other people" is because I believe that any real crime should have a victim; first and foremost. All victimless crimes, crimes against the state, such as selling ganja or being homosexual; should never be considered offenses punishable by law.
Any crime punishable by law should have a victim. Otherwise, somebody the likes of George Bush, Sadaam Hussien, Ariel Sharon, Vladamir Putin is going to be deciding for us how we should live our life.
Theres a reason for affirmative action aka positive discrimination, because lets say we make the law equal. That is, make the law non-discriminatory, because remember back in ye old times it was, let say if we make it equal, it does nothing but preserve the status-quo. Because just simply practising equality, will not necessarily result in equality. If two people start off in incomparable situations, treating them similarly will merely perpetuate this, , furthure accentuating the differences.
Inequalities will always exist in society. What you said is that we need "positive discrimination" laws to equal the playing field. And I think that an "equal playing field" is something that is not a reality in nature or in human interaction. No two human beings are alike, and resources are always limited for everyone. Some people may have more resources than others, but this only creates an opportunity for exchange between two people. Because if we all were TRULY 100% equal then it would no longer be possible for me to exchange with you personally or economically because I already have everything you have, and you have everything that I have. So there is nothing wrong with in-equality, it is a fact of life we can never avoid.
Let me give you real world examples. Let's say oil never came, and the Indian subcontinent was more "equal" to the Arabian peninsula financially. Well then exchange could not take place between the two. Because the Bangali's, Indians, Pakistani's would not see the benefit in immigrating to the Arab lands for higher wages and opportunities, and likewise the Arabs would not see the benefit in having these people provide them with cutting edge technology, hard construction labor, etc. The part that I don't agree with is how citizenship is a law that is used to discriminate against others. In the way you see Indian immigrants being stripped of passports, and incidents such as that.
Another example, and the most obvious one is the case of black people in America. Let's say you want to equal the playing field. So you make all these affirmative action laws aka "positive discrimination". There are a few problems with this....
-are you saying blacks aren't capable of rising up on their own in the way other minorities such as Asians, Arabs, and Jews have in America?
-you've now created reverse racism in that whites will resent blacks as a threat to them, and they will now cry out that there is unfair play at hand, so you have now intensified the debate and hatred amongst whites and blacks
-If there is a large population of blacks who can not find work and get ahead or get "more equal" to whites then all you have done is created a HUGE potential market for black owned businesses. Black people, recognizing their position in America can then pool their conscience and their resources towards their advancement, and support black owned businesses and projects in the free market... without the George Bush's of the world enforcing "positive discrimination" laws for them.
Anyway, word, this is getting into a different topic, but the reason I raised it was that, IslamInevitable said that we can never have total objectivity, and we can never be totally separated from our prejudices, I agreed, but cited anti-discrimination law as an example of where objectivity (and the law is supposed to be objective) can take us so far.
The solution is not anti-discriminatory laws (which actually do more harm than good), the solution is to open up a free market, in which people can exchange freely to their advantage. Therefore if blacks are being discriminated against by white owned businesses they can simply open up their own businesses or support white businesses who do not employ discriminatory policies. But don't make the George Bush's of the world responsible for their advancement because they will always screw it up worse.
I would be more supportive of reparations for blacks then I would affirmative action and "positive discrimination" laws. Because those businesses (some of which are still around today) should be punished for the harm they did to other people; as in the case of slavery or Jim Crow laws, etc.
Even if a law is implemented that you think is a good one, it will not be executed properly. Government is destined for failure every time because government relies on force. So it can only last as long as you can hold your foot over somebodies head, because as soon as you turn the other way they will go right back to what they were doing. That's why as soon as you give black people affirmative action, the white man goes and gets the Mexican to do his cheap labor and uses the label of "illegal alien" as an excuse for using them in the same way they would previously use black people. Or they will find cheap labor overseas in Thialand or Indonesia outsourcing businesses to where cheap labor is available. Who knows, maybe then even black people advance and start using Mexican's or other foreigners in the same way they were previously exploited. So I'm sorry but you can not wave a magic wand over the world and create "equality".
Diary: How to Improve the World (You will only make matters
worse).
— John Cage
-
The point I'm trying to convey with that Saladin video (Nothing. Everything) and with that last post, is that, most religions or paths of spirituality cite God as being both knowable, but also vastly unknown. Zen is all about being totally ungraspable through explanation. Also I'm sure it says something about this in Koran aswell, I was read the Koran as a kid, but I can't remember verses or anything. But I remember it was something like there are 99 names of Allah that are known to man, but there is also Gods true name, which is only known to God. Therefore the Koran too acknowledges that God is knowable but also vastly unknowable. To me, as I see it: that footballer dude you were using as an example and aethists for that matter, are simply people who cope quite well with this unknowable facet of God. In simply living life and not knowing God, and knowing that they know nothing of God they are incrediblly spiritual and religious by not being spiritual or religious. Because God can only comprehend and understand God, only God knows God's true name; all the other names are imperfect and this is why secularism, aethism and objectivity for that matter are essential in this world. Essential. Essential. Essential. *echo fades out*
And none of y’all will ever know God’s real name
-'A Bullet Never Lies' (off Ill Bill's Moment of Reprisal, Vinnie Paz's verse)
Beautiful post from beginning to end (nice finish with the Vinnie Paz verse).
Yes, Islam does go to great lengths to explain that Allah is both knowable and unknowable. The Qu'ran doesn't say anything about "not knowing Allah's real name". I'm not aware of anything like that exactly... but what the Qu'ran does do is it explains that Allah can only be known through his attributes. For example, he is the most high, the knowing, the loving, the biulder, the destroyer, the eternal, the absolute, and so on. In one verse it says that Allah is "closer to us than our jugular vien"... that "Allah is always near to those who call on him"... that Allah's knowledge is omnipresent and so on.....
....while on the other hand the Qu'ran then stresses just how "unknowable" Allah is. How he is "unlike anything". That he can't be contained in anything, that he can is Infinite, that our minds can never conjure up an image for Allah, and so on.
Nothing.... EVERYTHING!
That Sallahudin line from the movie is ether!!
-
Thanks Infinite.
Before you made a huge post, I agree with alot of it, but I must admit I don't know much about US social issues or affirmative action in the US. Positive discrimination dosn't have to be racially based however, its just another word, for instance, here in Australia you have to meet certain requirements to be eligable for welfare (such as only earn a small amount of money, no job, etc) so in this sense welfare here discriminates between rich and poor and targets the poor and needy, hence the term 'positive discrimination'. I was talking more from a legal perspective, on what the law should be and justifying it for what it is. The law may say one thing, and I believe it is essential to have laws first, so that society can have something to build upon, but I never argued that the law is a 'magic wand'. Afterall, most countries (including the US and Australia) are bound by the UN International Convenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, and according to this document nobody is suppose to be homeless without shelter, without food, without adequate drinking water, etc. Its all excellent in principle, however it is far from the actual reality.
Concerning affirmative action however, in Australia it is kind of a different story. Black people here are indigenous, native to the country, right now, Australia has actually derogated from the UN International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and has temporarily put aside its anti-discrimination laws so that it can positively discriminate against indigenous Australians, so this country is engaging in a level of positive discrimination that Conservative Americans would probablly find ridiculous. Now its not an easy issue, indigenous Australians have never really had a motivation to create wealth and such for themselves, which is also fine. Really, before the European settlers came, they lived a very nomadic lifestyle. The government has tried all types of policies including doing nothing, however, many tragic issues within Aboriginal society like petrol sniffing, child abuse, alcoholism, have always drawn back the intervention of the government. Its a sad issue for Australia.
Peace
-
ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
Jews and Muslims have lived together in peace for years...there is no hate on either side.
are u fuckin shrooming dogg?
lol look at palestine and israel...
obviously there is hate
btw..Palestine=1 country..cant talk for all muslims.
true but there still is fighting
-
Thanks Infinite.
Before you made a huge post, I agree with alot of it, but I must admit I don't know much about US social issues or affirmative action in the US. Positive discrimination dosn't have to be racially based however, its just another word, for instance, here in Australia you have to meet certain requirements to be eligable for welfare (such as only earn a small amount of money, no job, etc) so in this sense welfare here discriminates between rich and poor and targets the poor and needy, hence the term 'positive discrimination'. I was talking more from a legal perspective, on what the law should be and justifying it for what it is. The law may say one thing, and I believe it is essential to have laws first, so that society can have something to build upon, but I never argued that the law is a 'magic wand'. Afterall, most countries (including the US and Australia) are bound by the UN International Convenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, and according to this document nobody is suppose to be homeless without shelter, without food, without adequate drinking water, etc. Its all excellent in principle, however it is far from the actual reality.
Concerning affirmative action however, in Australia it is kind of a different story. Black people here are indigenous, native to the country, right now, Australia has actually derogated from the UN International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and has temporarily put aside its anti-discrimination laws so that it can positively discriminate against indigenous Australians, so this country is engaging in a level of positive discrimination that Conservative Americans would probablly find ridiculous. Now its not an easy issue, indigenous Australians have never really had a motivation to create wealth and such for themselves, which is also fine. Really, before the European settlers came, they lived a very nomadic lifestyle. The government has tried all types of policies including doing nothing, however, many tragic issues within Aboriginal society like petrol sniffing, child abuse, alcoholism, have always drawn back the intervention of the government. Its a sad issue for Australia.
Peace
yur welcome, peace...
Yeah, I just don't like that. Why do we turn to government to solve our problems? Government has never been a solution to solving problems, they can only make matters worse. The only advantage government has over a free market institution is the ability to employ the use of FORCE. So like I said above, that will only last as long as you can hold your foot on somebodies head, and then they will go right back to doing what they want to do, whether that is sniffing petrol or whatever the aboriginals are doing in Australia.
Also, the government and most people in general can only understand what is "SEEN" in the economy and they are unable to see what is 'UNSEEN". It's like the whole argument that war is good for the economy, because of rebuilding projects and war economy utilizing excess resources, etc.
It's the broken window theory. A kids throws a rock and breaks a window to a barber shop, the people cheer because they say "now the plasterer will have employment in fixing the window". What they don't see is that now the barber will have to spend money to fix the window, rather than spending it on a luxury item like taking his wife to see a movie, or investing in more comfortable chairs for the customers inside the barber shop, etc. So you've lowered everyone's standard of living.
Likewise, in welfare, the people cheeir, because they say "now the poor will have more money". What they don't see is the unseen. The unseen is that those same businessman that you are stealing money from, will now have less money to invest in expanding their businesses, which could have helped supplied jobs and wealth for the poor who are now instead living off the state.
-
what you are purporting is essentially a nihilistic skeleton of a existentialist ideology... but all forms of practiced ideologies are judged by their own course of existence; in your case you state uS to be that example where, although the reality contradicts it, "freedoms" are afforded to everyone and according to you these are the products of objective idealism.
in an existentialist perception, this freedom of attaining pleasure is suitable to everyone's carnal appetite... so as long as that persuit doesnt violate another's persuit;
but in your terms if you look at it in a utilitarian perspective its a society thats doomed to implode, cuz the utility of an object is derived from its moral worth, since no moral code is standard as that would be infringing on people's freedom, this spirit of nihilism has led to multiple conflicts that are bound to pour over eventually into an implosion -> dysfunctional america which is the true america and full of contradictions, and the one you paint is only applicable to you!
and please dont be a cross cultural judge and state that muslim societies suffer due to the lack of these objective idealism... its only due to the european invasion of those lands that those conflicts arose, and european invasion was incited due to its own ideology of objective idealism which you fervently espouse...
Okay... so you don't want cross-cultural references... then.. this is why it's important for Muslims to study the era of the Ottoman Empire. Because essentially this is the last time that Muslims were strong enough to repel any advances made by the West. So with the Ottoman Empire as your standard, can you still make the same statements you made above?
I'm trying to understand exactly what your saying, so correct me if I'm wrong. But are you saying that because the West is built on the idea that man's goal is to consume and expand and that therefore it must ultimately overextend and implode upon itself?
I think your assuming that capitalism is a "Zero Sum Game". I think your assuming that the only way to gain in capitalism is when another person loses. But this is not the case. Any time a trade is made in the capitalistic free market, BOTH SIDES GAIN! Simply put, if I buy a watch from you for $20 I am saying that I value that watch more than the $20, while you are saying you value the $20 more than the watch, so we have both gained and our standard of living have improved by this trade on the free market. From an employment standpoint, if I work at your factory for $1 an hour in the free market, I am stating that I value that $1 more than any other alternative available, and you are saying that you value my services more than holding onto that $1, thus we have both improved our standard of living and both GAINED. Then whatever capital is derived from the business is then invested back into the market either by investing it in a bank, or the stock market, or expanding one's business to create even greater employment and wealth creation opportunities.
-
i see a lot of good diversions and digressions, all tangential and well in their own respect...
i dont know how it got this far, but i only had two points i wanted to make with illuminati...
1st: the garb of sophistry, however technical, can never attain what it claims to attain -> that is objectivity; although i said you can get far from your prejudices that doesnt mean you can get anywhere near being objective. and i alluded to this earlier that objectivity comes with a standard, for example illuminati you give value to certain objects and that is depended on your own experience and that is dependent on the collective experience of your people, your "moral code" within your collective that you can consider yourself objective in, but as soon as you extrapolate that same standard elsewhere it becomes subjective to the nth degree, your ancestors didnt have any value for the native americans, so their extermination by giving them reservations was considered a good objective decision, to the natives it was unfathomable, and now since americans have evolved their standard, they can come to look at those times differently...
2nd: okay i'll give you that you are very objective in your line of thought, but you have to accept that when you parade and pontificate that objective standard, you are doing nothing but the same intolerance you convict other subjectivists of....
i'm speaking in paradigms... your speaking within a paradigm...
thats why we are not understanding each other
-
^Thats just another way of saying "everybody thinks inside of the box except for meeee!"
My response to that is that there is certain objective standards that are universal. The Right to life and existence, the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of liberty, a prohibition on slavery, a prohibition on genocide, women's rights, rights of the child, the laws of war, Geneva Conventions, etc. These are objective standards that are held to be universal, they have their root in religious, spiritual and philosophical thought and despite the misgivings of history they have remained in representation and carried within the minds of individuals always at some point no matter how minute or token, for instance during the Spanish invasion of South America and the following genocide and destruction the Catholic priests attached to the Spanish army documented the horrors and continuely objected to the military campaign, these were individuals who kept their morals while those around them shed theirs. Also I know that Muhammad's army was suppose to be ethical to a degree and when He took Mecca he bid his men to refrain from slaughter of the innocents and those that had surrendered, etc. All these acts by various people throughout history have influenced and embodied the development of an unwritten natural law, that has in turn, influenced the development of international humanitarian principles that are held to be an objective universal standard today. I don't mind parading such objective standards and shoving them down the World's throat when you have 13 yr old pregnant child brides in Saudi Arabian hospitals, when you have Afghan boys who are raped by older men then made to keep silent about it lest it shame themselves, when you still have a culture of Islamic female clitoris mutilation in North Africa, etc
not even the golden arthritis of King Midas can buy peace for the righteous
You keep claiming my 'Mayflower' ancestors did this and this (even though I'm not American) but I bet if you look back into your ancestry you will find your ancestors are not without a history of violence as well. During WWII my grandfather was a Hungarian nationalist who sided with the Nazis out of convenience and flew bombers that dropped bombs on supposed Communist targets calmly killing scores of people. The other side of my family goes waaay back and they were most probably native Malays who ran through the jungle and chased down Spanish explorers and ate their hearts. These amazing acts of butchery and violence were committed against invading forces, however if haven't realized it yet: the world is a violent place and you are delusional if you think your genetic ancestors are without blood on their hands. The difference is I am righteous, but it seems you are self-righteous.
-
Now back to the topic: as I see it, we have these objective universal humanitarian standards and the West likes to see itself as a champion of these standards,
however this is obviously let down by the failure to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli situation.
As I see it, the idea of " a new world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations” has been let down after the Iraq 2003 invasion and the continuing Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
-
hahaha... its seems as even the most objective at heart are giving in to their emotional selves... no worries i validate that as being human...
and now it seems you are understanding... that apart from those abstract rights to life, shelter, security etc. there is nothing else that will be collectively validated by most humans... but it is the practice or the attempt to put in practice those rights when trouble starts...
see ofcourse everyone agrees in those rights, that is the reason i started this thread in the first place, because i sympathized with the palestinians who it seems are not being granted that right... now if israel OR any of my ancestors or your ancestors who stood in a similar place stood to understand those rights, maybe there would be less slaughter and that is actually the essential teaching of islam...
so we are in agreement with that... and trust me we all live in our boxes, i am not saying that...
what i am saying is as soon as those abstract rights are put into practice, it will be put in subjectively, no matter who it is, the most civilized romans to the most savage barbarians.. because its either anarchy or order... you yourself stated the problem of ontology, what defines wrong? who defines it? is it better that the most objective define it? but the most objective to you can be the most subjective to me... my point is that you will at one point or another begin to infringe on people's rights when you begin to put it in practice and only people can define infringement and since you are giving me examples of "wrongs" defined by you... any infringement can be considered wrong... and so it is either anarchy or order.. you have to subscribe to one, and if you subscribe to anarchy you are bound to implode....
-
and as far as me being self-righteous, not in the least, im scared im gonna end up in hell, and i dont know if Allah will forgive me man... i could care less for who's better...
-
Son, first I been understanding from the start, my posts just been going over your head so you maybe thinking I don't understand. Second your point of view about how objectivity infringes on the subjective point of view was a good foundation for a discussion, but really I already addressed this so let me take it back:
the question is, does it matter? Maybe all we need to do is 'go far', that is, be objective to an attainable utilitarian extent
Infringing on minorities is what order and utilitarianism is all about: the law is utilitarian in that it upholds the interests of the majority at the expense of the minority. In short, thats the meaning of utilitarian. We have objective laws (and the the law is an objective standard as I already said) and it impedes on the subjective minority views of pedophiles, rapists, robbers, murderers, radical Islamists, etc. Now using the law as an exmaple of an objective standard, the law knows it infringes on the rights of a minority and it is fine with that as long as it is a minority that warrants it.
Today the universality of objective human rights is borne out by the fact that the majority of nations, covering the full spectrum of cultural, religious and political traditions, have adopted and ratified the main international human rights instruments. Now unless you are arguing for a North African Imam's right to snip off the clitoris of a Muslim girl because prejudice laden objective Western notions of woman's rights are impeding on the Imam's subjective beliefs of female hygeine then I don't see why you keep pushing your 'Western objectivism is oppressive' line.
-
dont speak for the rest of the world first of all...
utilitarianism is actually based on moral worth of people and activities.. not on majorities or minorities, though that may be later derived...
so to "be objective to an attainable utilitarian extent" you set up a standard that you believe the rest of the world follows, for abstract principles of "doing good" and "warding evil and harm" but beyond that it infringes on EVERYONE, some more than others...
there is no objectivity... it is all just projected subjectivity, the "western objectivity" is hegemenous currently so that is why you can speak of it as a universal
like is aid you speakin in a box and im speakin about boxes
-
^
No, your talking on things you haven't actually done any knowledge on let alone understand. Its all good though, I know your kind.
From wikipedia:
The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham.[1] Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Infringing on minorities is what order and utilitarianism is all about: the law is utilitarian in that it upholds the interests of the majority at the expense of the minority. In short, thats the meaning of utilitarian. We have objective laws (and the the law is an objective standard as I already said) and it impedes on the subjective minority views of pedophiles, rapists, robbers, murderers, radical Islamists, etc. Now using the law as an exmaple of an objective standard, the law knows it infringes on the rights of a minority and it is fine with that as long as it is a minority that warrants it. Today the universality of objective human rights is borne out by the fact that the majority of nations, covering the full spectrum of cultural, religious and political traditions, have adopted and ratified the main international human rights instruments. Now unless you are arguing for a North African Imam's right to snip off the clitoris of a Muslim girl because prejudice laden objective Western notions of woman's rights are impeding on the Imam's subjective beliefs of female hygeine then I don't see why you keep pushing your 'Western objectivism is oppressive' line
-
damn.... islam wooped ur ass
-
Oh so ur in league with that moron too now are you...a league of morons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwYb24YYR8
-
Oh so ur in league with that moron too now are you...a league of morons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwYb24YYR8
huh???
-
Oh so ur in league with that moron too now are you...a league of morons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LwYb24YYR8
huh???
-
yo illuminati... i got no beef you man... u win...
im not into sophistry man... and thats wat this is
-
yo illuminati... i got no beef you man... u win...
im not into sophistry man... and thats wat this is
-
You would call it sophistry because it flys over your head. How can I feel I've won if you've just retained your default position of ignorance?
You haven't actually directly answered any of my points, you just keep repeating the same line: "objectivity impedes on subjectivity". Now look and learn:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html
utilitarianism
Definition:
Ethics concept in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good
As I said you haven't done the knowledge on utilitarianism or else you would know the simple definition of it and know better to cling to your ignorance like "utilitarianism is actually based on moral worth of people and activities.. not on majorities or minorities"
Hahaha, so who's really guilty of sophistry here?
Really, you’ve said alot of dumb shit like: “there is no objectivity in socio-political events”, when obviously there is and it isn’t confined to the West lest of all.
So I’ll dumb it down and try again:
The law in most societies is utilitarian. The law tends to be utilitarian because it upholds the will of the majority over the minority. It upholds the objective standard of good of the majority over the subjective views of the minority. The subjective views of rapists, Islamic terrorists and other criminals are subjugated for the benefit of the majority. This is not just the West, but most societies (except in such societies where the law upholds the minority over the majority). Maybe I should have used the word ‘most’ to begin with, because you seem to think this is only the
West or that I am some sort of spokesman for the West, I dunno. But its any society including Islamic society. Anyway thats what I’m saying.
Now I also alluded to other objective standards such
as ‘universal human rights’ and implied that they may be justified to impede on subjective minorities, such as the cultural right of the Imam to snip the clitoris of the African girl, as such an example.
So we don’t disagree on the nature of objectivity or subjectivity. I think where we diverge is that I believe the subjective may be justifiably subjugated by the objective view in certain scenarios.