Israel's Impunity

[The Overfiend]

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.

[IslamInevitable]

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....

[IslamInevitable]

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...

[The Overfiend]

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.

[IslamInevitable]

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

[The Overfiend]

^
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

[LAXCENTRAL]

damn.... islam wooped ur ass

[The Overfiend]

Oh so ur in league with that moron too now are you...a league of morons

[LAXCENTRAL]

Oh so ur in league with that moron too now are you...a league of morons

huh???

[The Phoenix]

Oh so ur in league with that moron too now are you...a league of morons

huh???

[IslamInevitable]

yo illuminati... i got no beef you man... u win...

im not into sophistry man... and thats wat this is

[LAXCENTRAL]

yo illuminati... i got no beef you man... u win...

im not into sophistry man... and thats wat this is

[The Overfiend]

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.