801. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241222 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 2, 2008 at 2:36 am

Addendum: I've just looked further and found, yes, an article about forced marriages in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/islam.religion

Roughly speaking, it's by the assistant of the Muslim Council of Britain talking about how great it is that the Muslim Marriage Contract will gain legal force. Her article is written in response to a much more honest one by Ed Husein about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/20/islam.religion

Amina (not her real name) had fallen in love with an Asian Muslim man. She was also Muslim and they both came from a similar ethnic background in Pakistan. Like so many of their generation, they were caught between Britain and Pakistan, between their parents and themselves. Amina's father refused to consent to her marriage and, as a Muslim daughter, she needed him as a "wali" or guardian to oversee her marriage. The local imam refused to conduct the ceremony without her father's consent and the presence of two male Muslim witnesses.

When I met Amina she was still in love with this man but her father insisted she marry her cousin from Pakistan, who happened, rather conveniently, to be visiting England. Her father also had a heart condition and used his illness to emotionally blackmail her. Eventually Amina gave way. She sacrificed love to south Asian culture and married Mr Pakistan.

White, liberal eyes reading this article will be astounded to know these things happen in Britain. I am sorry, but they do. And it gets worse.

Amina was repeatedly raped by Mr Pakistan, but her mother told her that a Muslim man has such rights over his wife, and in Islam there is no such thing as marital rape

Etc.

Now, the question I put to you is: Which is more important? That these ghastly happenings go on? Or that this or that paper has a certain political slant?

802. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241217 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 2, 2008 at 2:29 am

Actually, eppeist, I already knew about Ann Cryer. I don't see what's disingenous about this; she herself says that the problem of forced marriages is being ignored by politicians.

Now is she, or is she not, telling the truth here? If she is, then there's nothing disingenuous about reporting the article.

For the record, I think that gutlessness about Islam is pretty evenly distributed amongst the various parties here in Europe. However, I will just note that I did a search in Google News for her name, and this story only showed up in the Telegraph.

803. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241211 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 2, 2008 at 2:17 am

Laurie - so it's not true, because it's from the Telegraph?

804. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241206 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 2, 2008 at 2:06 am

And this ghastliness goes on right on our own streets. Wonderful. Ain't multiculturalism grand?

I wonder whether there is any depravity known to man that is no sanctioned & practiced by Islam.

EDIT: On that note:

"MPs too scared to talk about forced marriage 'in case they lose Muslim votes'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2661385/MPs-too-scared-to-talk-about-forced-marriage-in-case-they-lose-Muslim-votes.html

Our politicians in action. What a wonderful system.

805. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240956 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

I did not imagine in a million years that my initial statement would be met with such hostility.

Not quite so much fun to be on the receiving end, eh, J Mac?

--------------------------

To the more serious point, I do agree though. From looking at human history and the serious students of it, I think that war is part of the human condition. It'll always be with us as long as there is a gang willing to get what it wants by unleashing force and fanaticism.

806. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240928 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 1, 2008 at 10:01 am

Willfully denseness alert!

You know, if you are going to quote two sentences (and part of a third), you could at least read the second one.

It was our reason that did that.

Reason, something you seem chronically incapable of employing. If you did, you might have understood the first complete sentence

Humans have not "escaped" evolution or our instincts

Here is what I said:

escape that state

That state. If you want to see what that state's like, try visiting Somalia, or the wilds of Afghanistan. Oh, please do.

Our "reason" is not a magical gift from sky-gods or fairies, it is part of our evolved nature.

And I denied this - where exactly? I am getting fed up with this. The willfull misunderstanding and malice that seems to crowd your brain is getting too much to bear.

807. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240799 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 1, 2008 at 4:23 am

Now your foes don't disagree that you should go to point B. They are saying that you should not say "the tube is the absolutely best way to travel" without the added condition "to B". This is really a rather pedantic debate imo.

Bonzai, how many times do I have to say that the basis of this morality requires just such a choice?

Here's an example, to backtrack to my excoriation of those damn relativists making excuses for gang-rape in Norway. Now here's how I see the argument breaking down: Why are you against this? Because it's inflicting hideous suffering on innocents. Why do you care about that? Because I care about Justice. Why do you care about Justice? Because Justice is essential to my survival - and I have chosen to live.

That's the basic choice - what you call the choice to go to B.

Now noone - as you say - has argued that, say, the Shariah or slavery or racism doesn't involve huge amounts of human suffering. Again, as you say, what they argue is that there's no rational basis for calling this evil, that there is no reason to prefer a society of free markets and minds, to one of censorship and slave-camps. When I'm told to "stop sounding like a Christian", what is the implication? That without faith, there is no reason to prefer freedom to slavery, happiness to suffering?



Take a look at this:

Because of our evolved emotional response, and because any act performed by you that harms another should, as far as possible, be contrary to the law of the land.

But we have a number of evolved emotional responses, and many of them are very nasty. In fact, if you look at the sum total of human history, for the most part we've been stuck in hideous tribal war. That's the natural, evolutionary state of our species. Some of us have, at an unbelievable cost, managed to escape that state. I simply don't think that our residual instincts are, on their own, enough to have got us this far. It was our reason that did that. Nor do I see any reason why we should heed our evolutionary impulses - especially considering how nasty some of them are.

808. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240561 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:27 pm

We cannot observe moral values (since they do not exist

Then - and this is the question that keeps getting dodged - why argue about them? Why try to act in a moral manner, for that matter? Why try to figure out the right course of action? If moral values don't exist, why isn't every course of action and every code of values equal?

An act is thought of as wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement."

Mind if I just ask a few questions here? What is 'reasonably reject' - who decides that, and by what standard? If agreement is the basis, how does one form it?

The problem is, too many people think they somehow can question the majority of the experts in the field of philosophy, pertaining to philosophical questions.

*dryly* I'm restraining a snide comment. And the reason I'm restraining it is that there's a more serious one. Philosophy deals with fundamental issues - the nature of reality (metaphysics), our means of knowing it (epistemology), and how we should act (ethics).

What would objective moral values even be in our physical universe - and how could we discover "moral truths"?

I did say that there is a basic choice that needs to be taken, and that choice is to live. If you choose not to live, well, then that's not a problem for anyone, is it? But granting the choice to live has been made - and this is akin to your comment that it's a decision, not a discovery - then there are implications from that. Because if we have chosen to live, we have defined our life as a value - something we act to keep and protect. It follows that those courses of action which support that value are good, and thsoe that destroy it are evil. There are virtues - modes of action - that are demonstrably in the service of an individual's life: Justice, Honesty etc.

Yet there's still the more basic question: If there's no moral truths, no basis for right or wrong, what's the point of even discussing it? Some choose this, some choose that, and it's just a question of who dominates at whatever time. Seriously, could you explain that one to me?

Btw, thanks for the long post.

809. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240540 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:10 pm

It displays your arrogance however that you must assume it is all about you

Oh, but JMac, time and time again, you have insisted that it the declaration that there is an absolute morality is synonomous with it being my absolute morality. Now you desperately try to retrench.

You call me arrogant, and all sorts of names - but what does that matter, if there is no absolute standard by which that can be gauged? This is the question that you don't answer - and you never will, as I think you are terrified of that answer.

If you find a view pleasing then you judge it to be objectively absolutely moral, if you find it displeasing you judge it to be absolutely objectively immoral. The views and arguments of others cannot dent your determination.

Even if this were true, and it is not, for I have learned much from many great moral teachers - even if it were true, what difference would it make to you? If there is no absolute morality by which my behaviour can be condemned, why do you try to do so? If there is no standard agaisnt which I can be measured and found lacking, why do you insist on finding me so? Every single commen here invokes the premise of there being such a standard. You are like the man who tries to argue against logic, and find that he has to invoke logic to argue against it, or the one who tries to argue against reason, but must accept reason to form his argument.

810. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240497 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:22 pm

JMac that there is an absolute morality, which may not necessarily be mine. An. Do you get this? Is this really so difficult? Is this point that any investigation has as its premise that there is an answer that we can find, though we may not know it yet, really so difficult?

Or are you, in fact saying that only my morality is absolute? Thanks, that's a nice compliment.

I very much doubt that your insane intellectual dishonesty will allow you to respond to any of those questions.

811. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240485 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Lazarus,

Is it that there are no answers to some questions? I suggest not. It's probably because we sometimes ask the wrong questions. Without asserting my own views I could suggest that your coming to firm conclusions without even asking the right questions.

Oh, that's entirely possible. Then what're the right questions, though? I'd like to hear them.

But my more general point is this: the passage you have written suggest that there are right answers to be found - and it's just a matter of figuring out how to get them. Did I read that right?

812. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240480 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

If there's anyone weasely here Jmac it's you: If there is no absolute standard by which to measure, by which to prove or disprove a moral assertion, if, in fact, those assertions can't be proved in any way - then why have any kind of moral discussion at all? Could you answer that for once?

You state the rule to debating your moral view is that we must first accept your moral rule

How many times do I have to say that I don't say that?

Oh, your tones are getting very, very absolutist again. Heal thyself!

813. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240468 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:57 pm

. If you wish to abandon reason because you don't like the lack of answers

*dryly* I've just been studying the cosmological red-shift. Reason seems to have found plenty of answers there. Or are you saying they're not correct? Are you seriously saying that there are no answers to be found from reason?

814. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240463 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:55 pm

J Mac what is the matter with you? I have said that there is an absolute basis for morality; my moral views may not be it (though I believe them to be correct, else I would not hold them), but any discussion, any argument about morality must take as its basis the premise that there is an absolute morality, which can be discovered by reason. Else, why argue? What's the point? What's the point of investigating, or discussing, or reasoning about the subject? If there is no absolute, nothing to be found, then why bother?

815. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240447 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:42 pm

No one has denied that answers are possible.

Really? Then what's all this talk about no absolutes in ethics? If there's no absolutes - how is any answer possible? How could you determine anything?

In your complaint against me, you once again invoked absolute characterizations - something you've been heavily against. If there are no absolutes, why do you use such language?

816. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240445 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:40 pm

We don't know that there is a view that will be right. All views have to be shown to be possibly right by evidence. All views have to be questioned unless there is "proof".

Okay, explain that one. If there's no chance of a right answer - why investigate at all? Or if you are saying that there's potentially a right answer in some cases but not in others, then that itself is still open to investigation on a case by case basis - that is that the question "Does this problem have a right answer" is in itself answerable.

817. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240440 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Getting absolutist, are we J Mac?

I've said this before: it isn't 'either my moral system'. I have not said that, I did not say that. What I have said is that, just as in the case of science, we may not know what the right answer to this or that question is, but the premise that there is a right answer forms the basis of all investigations.

I said multiple times that I'm happy to have an argument or a discussion about ethics - but how do you have an argument when it's denied that any answers are possible? Every time you condemn me or my writings, J Mac, you are doing so on the premise that there is some standard or measure by which I'm wrong.

818. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240432 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:26 pm

I think you have a seriously messed-up view of science. Science isn't about truths actually existing. It is about testing to see if a view might be right. Even if we get the evidence, it does not mean that the view is right, just that it hasn't yet been shown to be wrong.

Er... I'm an actual scientist, for the record. Of course when we investigate something we don't know that a given view or hypothesis is right - but we know that there is a view that will be right.

To give one example, I was testing the evolution of bacterial toxicity in a model strain over a series of generations. Starting out, I hypothesized that they'd become more toxic. This turned out to be not the case. They became less toxic.

That's the point. I didn't know what the correct answer was going to be, but I knew that there would be a correct answer.

Still, there's a more basic point here: "a seriously messed up view of science" - how very... absolutist. You're not invoking absolutes, are you steve? That'd be terrible! You keep saying so.

819. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240413 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 12:58 pm

ThoughtsCommonToad,

There are either no absolutes or some absolutes. It is not an absolute claim to say we must be skeptical. That is the scientific position, demonstrate absolutes or abandon them.

Of course, which is why I have been talking about using our human reason to discover these truths. But what is the position of the moral relativist? Nothing is absolute, all is realtive, and there's no point in even trying to find those truths. Because the quest to find any truth - moral or scientific - is based on the premise that those truths actually exist and that our reason is competent to understand them.

820. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240393 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Okay, Nairb,, I see the model, but I disagree with it.

First of all I disagree with the assumption that there are these five generations. Just from the basis of everyone I've met in the West, there's usually only three: grandparents, parents, children. I've known only one grandparent who's lived long enough to become a great-grandparent. Yet even granting your "twenty years is a genaration" assumption, that would still only give us with four generations.

So let's build the following 4 generation model. Say each generation has a thousand members (this is for simplification)

A:1000
B: 1000
C: 1000
D:1000

Say this replacement rate is what our fertility used to be. Now suppose that D is the current generation that has a 1.1 birth rate (Spain). You'll end up with the following structure:

B: 1000
C: 1000
D: 1000
E: 500

Now scroll forward another twenty years. Even if the birth rate recovers back to the replacement rate you'll have the following picture:

C:1000
D:1000
E:500
F:500

That's a thousand less than our original ABCD population - 25%. Not 50%, I'll give you that, but not a nice sign. Even if the fertility rate remains at replacement level, you loose another 17.5% and then another one. So it may take longer, but it would be a halving. You'd need fertility rates to be 4.2 - double - for a good recovery.

And all of this depends on a recovery in one generation. What if these low fertility rates persist for another one - or even don't recover entirely?

There's another problem: these societies will end up with a predominantly old population. That's not good if you're up against one that is predominantly young.

How's my math? ;-)

821. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240329 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 11:05 am

Nairb, on the subject of that population data, could you explain a bit more about the whole 'five generations business'? Because I'm afraid I don't get it.

I'm an only child. My parents aren't about to have any more children, so with my generation, the number in my direct family has halved. All of my grandparents have passed on. Assuming I have kids, my parents will probably be around to see them, but not for my grandkids. So could you expand on that point a bit further?

822. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240325 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 11:00 am

I'm tired of this. So I will just ask one question:

Alot of those who are now insisting that there are no moral absolutes were just recenlty condemning me in absolutist terms. So, I can expect an apology yes? Wouldn't want any nasty old absolutism, now would we?

823. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240292 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 9:45 am

Bonzai, your point about the various flavours of this insanity is well take. But the problem is that there's no major version that isn't a huge problem from the p.o.v. of Infidels.

Now, as to why it seems to have intensified recently; well, let's look at historically. The last major Jihad of the Caliphate was when the Ottomans joined with the Germans in WWII, and got themselves dismembered for it. And, yes, it was a Jihad - Kaiser Willie specifically used that language to get the Ottomans on his side. Then there was the collaboration between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolf Hitler in the Second World War; the Mufti was never brought to justice, but helped ignite the first Arab-Israel war. Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by other Nazi-admirers, was spreading throughout the world. So it's been pretty much ongoing. It has however intensified recently. There are three reasons for this:

1) The telecomunications revolution, which has allowed the fundies to call their fellow muslims back to the true path, be they ever so distantly scattered (Fareed Zakaria wrote something interesting on this). I think that this is the bit that's most relevant to your question about Malaysia.

2) The Oil that has powered the engines of Saudi and Iranian propaganda around the world.

3) The settlement of large numbers of Muslims behind enemy lines, in the dar al-Harb, a policy of suicidal stupidity in my view.

The doctrine can lie dormant, but it's always possible to revive it to its full horror.

824. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240266 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 7:46 am

It is not that anyone here would seriously disagree with his definitions. They just want him to concede that those are definitions, nevertheless, rather than "theorems" that can be deduced from his moral system. They want him to concede that justifications of these definitions lie outside his system

Bonzai, what exactly have I been saying?

I said:

that essential choice - whether or not to live- is extra-moral. It is one you have to take for yourself.

I also pointed out that the definition of good and evil was reached through induction, not deduction. Okay? What is so difficult about that? But once you have that defintion, you can deduce from there. Why do I have to repeat this so often? Look back over the thread: how often have I said this?

825. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240265 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 7:43 am

Fanusi - while I think of it - you're neglecting the fact that these very people you are railing against are the ones who hold absolutist beliefs in the extreme! They believe - absolutely - that women are mere chattels and have virtually no rights

Laurie, yes, but who opened the door to them? Who howled down every warning? Who bent over backwards to excuse them? The relativists. The same ones who have always been the first to scream when its safe, and to shut their yaps at the first real sign of danger. Here's an excerpt from what Hitchens wrote about the critics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"The enlightenment driven away … " This very strong and bitter line came back to me when I saw the hostile, sneaky reviews that have been dogging the success of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's best seller Infidel, which describes the escape of a young Somali woman from sexual chattelhood to a new life in Holland and then (after the slaying of her friend Theo van Gogh) to a fresh exile in the United States. Two of our leading intellectual commentators, Timothy Garton Ash (in the New York Review of Books) and Ian Buruma, described Hirsi Ali, or those who defend her, as "Enlightenment fundamentalist[s]." In Sunday's New York Times Book Review, Buruma made a further borrowing from the language of tyranny and intolerance and described her view as an "absolutist" one.


Now, I know both Garton Ash and Buruma, and I remember what fun they used to have, in the days of the Cold War, with people who proposed a spurious "moral equivalence" between the Soviet and American sides. Much of this critique involved attention to language. Buruma was very mordant about those German leftists who referred to the "consumer terrorism" of the federal republic. You can fill in your own preferred example here; the most egregious were (and, come to think of it, still are) those who would survey the U.S. prison system and compare it to the Gulag.

In her book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali says the following: "I left the world of faith, of genital cutting and forced marriage for the world of reason and sexual emancipation. After making this voyage I know that one of these two worlds is simply better than the other. Not for its gaudy gadgetry, but for its fundamental values." This is a fairly representative quotation. She has her criticisms of the West, but she prefers it to a society where women are subordinate, censorship is pervasive, and violence is officially preached against unbelievers. As an African victim of, and escapee from, this system, she feels she has acquired the right to say so. What is "fundamentalist" about that?

The Feb. 26 edition of Newsweek takes up where Garton Ash and Buruma leave off and says, in an article by Lorraine Ali, that, "It's ironic that this would-be 'infidel' often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose." I would challenge the author to give her definition of irony and also to produce a single statement from Hirsi Ali that would come close to materializing that claim. Accompanying the article is a typically superficial Newsweek Q&A sidebar, which is almost unbelievably headed: "A Bombthrower's Life." The subject of this absurd headline is a woman who has been threatened with horrific violence, by Muslims varying from moderate to extreme, ever since she was a little girl. She has more recently had to see a Dutch friend butchered in the street, been told that she is next, and now has to live with bodyguards in Washington, D.C. She has never used or advocated violence. Yet to whom does Newsweek refer as the "Bombthrower"? It's always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it's the victim of violence who is "really" inciting it.

You can see it with those cretinous comments from Norway and Australia that blame the raped women for not understanding the culture of their rapists. I'm not listening to a bar of that song.

And even on a practical note: do you seriously wonder why people of goodwill listen to this kind of mush and apologia for every horror and indecency, and decide to turn to religion as a way of finding moral absolutes?

The problem is that we have to destroy absolutism in order to get that message across. We can't do that while supporting absolute values

Sorry, Steve, your demand that all absolutes be abolished is an absolute demand in its own right. So abolish thyself first.

Here's another absolute, which even Steve admits: there are those systems that cause an unbelievable amount of suffering, misery and death. That's an absolute.

Smith,

To me, your insistance on convincing the "misguided" before you have anything substantial to offer for them to reconsider their biases seems self-defeating

But how is it possible for Steve to offer anything better? To say that a course would be better than another one - is in itself an absolute! And Steve doesn't believe in those.

Noone, but noone is a consistent relativist. You couldn't survive. You couldn't survive without being able to draw distinctions between the robber and the worker, between the rapist and the victim. What moral relativism is is an escape clause: a cheap way of getting out of moral responsibility when it seems a bit too pricy. As was amply demonstrated by the Dutch's cowardly treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The moral thing to do would be to have said "Freedom of expression is an absolute that will not be compromised, and we'll back her to the hilt". But that would have involved some integrity, some courage and some hard work. Much, much easier to retreat into a fog of relativist mush.

--------------------------

NMcC,

And Fanusi could have replied: 'Yes, but for all intents and purposes, our thoughts are all we have to go by and therefore might as well be considered as objective' and, then, both agreed to disagree.

But what conceivable standard of proof do we have if it isn't our own reason? What other tool of survival is open to us?

826. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240228 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 5:40 am

I happen to agree much more with you, in terms of the effects of holding absolutist positions. I think Fanusi mistakes the epistemological evaluation of relativism as somehow appeasing to cultural practices which most of us would consider immoral anyway

Laurie, if I may? A while back I posted the following:

. If you want to see the muck of relativism run rampant, here's a little taste: in the aftermath of that epidemic of gang rape in Australia, Monroe Reimers of the Sidney Moral Herald wrote the folloiwng:


not confuse justice with revenge. We need answers. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practiced with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."


And in a similar situation in Norway, one norweigan professor wrote:


rape is scarcely punished because it is generally believed that it is women who are responsible for rape.

Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes. Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it


Now do you see why my blood seethes when confronted with relativists?

This is why I loathe moral relativism with such intensity. It's also what's wrong with this comment:

So, in order to live together, we need to negotiate standards.

How on earth are you going to negotiate with that? If I say that homosexuals are free to live as they choose, and Muslim fanatics say they should be killed - what the hell is there to negotiate about?

Fanusi & co. There are absolutes, in terms of morality, and these can be seen in universal abhorrence of rape, murder, etc.

I'm going to be pedantic here and point out that in Islam, rape is acceptable. But to focus on those cases, what do they all have in common? A destruction of life, which is to say an imposition of misery and death.

So we can abstract from that to define evil in the same way that I have defined it. Evil is an abstraction from concrete, observed instances, in the same way that the law of gravity is an abstraction from concrete observed instances.


Steve,

I didn't say it wasn't evil. I think widescale suffering is dreadful, and wrong

Oh really?

No-one is saying that racism doesn't cause suffering. The problem is when someone claims that this suffering is wrong by some sort of objective truth about ethics.

...

I rest my case

827. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240198 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:25 am

Because I have empathy for others.

So what? If suffering isn't objectively evil, what does your empathy matter? By what right can you say that your empathy should be considered?

-----------------

epeeist, if it'll help, I can stop talking about evil, and replace it with discussions of human misery and suffering. Instead of saying that the Shariah is evil, I could say that it provably and demonstrably causes widespread human suffering, misery, and enslavement. Would that be better? Though for the life of me I can't see a difference between the two statements.

828. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240196 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:22 am

What Fanusi seems to be saying is that there are objective moral values. However, he doesn't seem to be able to demonstrate such an objective value, or say why it is objective or how he knows that it is objective.

For chrissakes - for the last time, there is something you need to choose for this to make sense, and that choice is to live, which means to hold life as a value - i.e. something you act to keep and gain. That is the basis. Steve's endless footling mumbling that widescale suffering isn't evil ignores that that is the definition of evil. This is as pointless an argument as trying to argue that a triangle isn't a three-sided, two dimensional object, or trying to argue that redshift isn't the broadening of wavelengths caused by motion away from the observer. that is the definition This is arguing that A is not-A.

You may have noticed that Steve can't say why, if there's no objective moral truth, he can argue against theocracy, or in favour of democracy - or engage in the kind of moralistic condemnation of me that he keeps doing.

Honestly, why is this so damn difficult to grasp?

829. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240188 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:02 am

Oh thank goodness, decius, someone reasonable to talk to:

Steve and Diacanu

I haven't been following this thread much. Are you guys seriously attempting to make a case for moral relativism?

Yes, yes they are. Read this thread: you'll find such things ad JMac refusing to state that gang-rape is wrong.

On the subject of Utalitarianism, I don't know much about it. We could have a good discussion about that, probably. But the argument at the moment isn't about which of the differnt moral codes is the right one, but whether there is any right to be found in the first place.

830. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240187 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:57 am

I give a damn about democracy because I want fairness in the world.

But why do you want it? Isn't that just your own personal views, no better or worse than those who want tyranny, or theocracy? By what standard do you say otherwise?

You keep throwing this word "evil" around. You need to

1. Define it clearly in a non-circular way

I did Here it is again:

"'that human action and idea that causes widespread suffering"

Now, that's the definition and I'm sticking to it. Punkt aus basta. What's your definition?

831. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240182 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:49 am

Making such claims is fundamentally undemocratic, as it is promoting what is right by assertion, not reason. That gives the minority or individual no ability to counter the views of the majority - it leads to decisions based on who shouts "I'M RIGHT" the loudest

So what? Why should we care about democracy? Why should we give a damn what the minority or the individual thinks? By what right do you assert otherwise?

You talk about "negotiated human rights achieved by consensus". Well, the Islamic world has negotiated some very different ones. By what standard do you say they're wrong? If a group negotiates a version that says its okay to kill homosexuals - or Jews or Hindus or whatever - by what standard could you say they're wrong?

I have answers to those, but you don't seem to have them.

You have not shown that it is hard-wired that it is evil.

It is evil if we wish to live. I have repeated this so often: if we choose to live, then suffering is evil. Now what. is. so. difficult. about. that?

832. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240179 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:35 am

Steve, I am really tired of this. I have said that suffering is evil because it is inimical to human life. THat's a basic fact; it's hardwired into us. And that hardwiring is relavent if we choose to live. What is so damn difficult about that statement?

Now answer two of my questions for once:

Statements that there are absolutes and you know what they are are dangerous to society

So what? What's the problem if it is dangerous to society? Why should I care? By what right do you say that a danger to society is bad?

For the record, my views aren't dangerous to society, but essential to its maintenance, but even if simply stating my views would blast society to its foundations and reduce us to total anarchy - so what? By what standard do you object to that?

And here's my second question: By what standard would you say that the killing of homosexuals as espoused by Islam is wrong?

Can you please answer these? I have answered your points throughout this; now answer my questions.

833. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240171 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:20 am

No-one is saying that racism doesn't cause suffering

Fine. Thank you, that's the admission I've been looking for. I don't honestly see how there can be any other definition of evil than 'that human action and idea that causes widespread suffering'. This is based on one single choice - to live, and why have I had to repeat this so often?

834. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240170 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:18 am

Steve, if you can tell me what you mean by a 'social construct', I'd be obliged. As I understand the term is simply means that a given society views things one way, and others view it another way, and there's nothing to choose objectively between them.

Then let me make it more personal. We all know that Muslim fanatics think that homosexuals should be killed - and that even in the West they are pursuing that agenda with some vigour. Now, by what right do you say they're wrong about that? If it's all just a matter of social constructs, they just happen to see things differently than you.

This is why I say that if you choose to live, then there are those things that promote life and they are the good, and those things that destroy life that are the evil. That is why I say that this sort of behaviour is evil - because I want to live and I know what this kind of injustice always leads to, and can I really not be pushing at an open door here?

We already do practise a form of racism in Western cultures and consider is moral. Just look at the way we treat our very close cousins the great apes....

Okay, apes, unlike the other races of man, do, in fact, differ considerably in behaviour and intelligence from humans. That is why it is right to discriminate - i.e. differentiate - between them. But even if this were not the case - on what basis could you object to that, unless you were willing to say that racism is an evil?

Diacanu,

Because I'm racist, Fanusi.
It's my favorite thing.
The L.A riots and hurricane Katrina were my Christmas.

That's what you want to hear, right?

No, I say that you're a relativist, and I say that based on your statements here. It is always and invariably the case that the relativist ends up defending the evil at the expense of the good - because in any compromise between good and evil, it is only good that can loose and only evil that can profit.

You can take a look at those ghastly statements made about gang-rape that I quoted as a clear example.

835. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240162 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:00 am

*groans* Diacanu,

What if there was some sort of zombie plague, and there were enough zombies to constitute a race?

I did actually make this point myself, though the example I gave was Middle Earth. However the fact is that, on this earth on which we live racism is both irrational and causes suffering. Why is it so damn difficult to admit that?

836. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240157 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:53 am

Okay, define 'sentient', would you? I said that our morality was both inductive and deductive - hence, like science.

Seriously, what is so damn controversial about saying that a non-racist society is more free, provides greater happiness to its members than a racist one? What is the problem here?

837. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240153 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:44 am

*sighs* Steve, I did say that morality was human, and not something built into the Universe (alongside gravitation and whatnot). It therefore refers only to human behaviour. Now, is it not so that a non-racist society has more freedom, more happiness and more equality than a racist one? Is it, or is it not, so?

Why is this so controversial?

838. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240144 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:24 am

I'm confused. Are you saying that there are moral "truths" that will be found by any sentient creature, like mathematical truths?

I'd say like scientific truths, but yes. It is a demonstrable fact that freedom is better than slavery, as freedom causes less suffering and more happiness. Similarly, non-racism is better than racism. That's provably so.

839. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240142 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:17 am

Rachel, I did say that that essential choice - whether or not to live- is extra-moral. It is one you have to take for yourself. But once that's granted, then there are consequences. I mean, if you've decided to live, then it becomes necessary to choose food over poison. And similarly, it becomes necessary to choose freedom over slavery. Equality of all peoples, vs. racism. And so on.

No, you don't have to choose to live - but you can't escape the fact that death is the alternative. No, you can choose to live while trying to avoid the right course of action that requires - but you can't escape the fact that the result will be suffering and frustration.

When I refer to a course of conduct or a philosophy as 'evil' then what I mean is that by its nature, it will cause unspeakable human suffering. And when I refer to one as good, I mean it will increase human freedom and human happiness. I could just switch the words for the definitions, and my points would be the same.

That's the glory of all great moral champions throughout history: their work was in the service of life.

That's why I approach this scientifically. It also gives the basis for being able to disagree honoruable. Take one example: one man whom I admire greatly, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Now I disagree with him about one major point he's said; I think he's wrong there. Does my saying that imply that he's morally bad? Of course not. Does my saying that imply that I'm his moral superior? Of course not - in the same way that I'm Einstein's marked scientific inferior, but I still know that Quantum Physics is right, while he remained certain that it wasn't.

That's the great thing about humanity. In the same way that we don't need to rediscover each scientific truth, but can draw on the work of those greater than ourselves, we don't need to uncover each moral truth again, but can draw on the discoveries of those who came before us.


----------------------------------

It's just after 8.40 on a Sunday morning and I'm away to get my Sunday Times and a large cup of coffee - before I pluck up the courage to enter my living room where my young son and his two 'sleepover' mates have been 'camping out'. I see already that they have switched off the heating for the entire house, made a 'hut' from four duvets, eaten about 14 packets of crisps each, drunk copious quantities of fizzy drinks and left half the lights in the house on all night - and you are worrying about the invasion of the Muslims!

*laughs* Duly noted. I'm glad your son's had a good time.

840. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240135 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 12:31 am

Parallel found!

in October 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia. One by one their critics were silenced with the, initially tacit, support of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Trotsky. As each critic was neutered, these four congratulated themselves in creating the conditions, as they seen it, for genuine freedom and democracy, by doing away with all their active and vociferous opponents. Now, while they were busy doing this, a fellow traveler of theirs, who also favoured the one party state and who agreed with the need to silence its opponents, was busy doing something else.

NMcC: the cartoons. The Rushdie affair. The cancellation of the Muhammad novel. The introduction of these 'incitement to religious hatred' laws. The recent case of that other cartoonist in Holland arrested. I'm not doing the censoring.

841. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240133 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 12:25 am

HMac, what arguments? Your idiotic jokes about Buffaloes? And what questions? List them and I'll answer them. And do me the courtesy of responding to mine.


-------------------------

Nairb,

Evidence?

Here are a few headlines:

UK: Muslim council chiefs order non-Muslim concillors to fast during Ramadan

£20,000 from BBC charity appeals ended up in the hands of the 7/7 jihadist bombers

BBC presenter complains: TV not showing humanity of Taliban

UK: sharia courts "order[ing] wives to be more attentive to their husbands' needs"

New York Times calls Brigitte Gabriel a "radical Islamophobe"

UK: Sharia car insurance now available

Danish Intelligence to ban words like "jihad," "Islamism," "fundamentalism," and "mujahidin"

U.S. Holocaust Museum removes whitewashed biography of Mufti of Jerusalem

Council of Europe and EU "implementing policies aimed to rewrite school textbooks throughout the European continent in order to provide a positive and non-threatening view of Islam"

Cardinal criticises Euro MP over anti-Islam stand: reports


UK Government renames Islamic terrorism as 'anti-Islamic activity' to woo Muslims

I mean, where do you want me to start?

The riots in France 2 years ago led to no new parties, no agenda, no manifesto, no even clear target other then the police.

That would be good - if this was a 'clash' of civilizations. I think it is closer to a 'crash', a situation where destabilizing is in itself the desired end.

And there's the other point: Le Pen made it into the final round of the elections. This is what I've been saying for some time: that the failure of our governments to confront this problem is leading to the rise of fascist parties in Europe and Christian fundies in the US. Sam Harris made the same point. I don't think I've seen that point addressed.

Nairb, could I finish off by asking one thing? I thought you took umbrage at my saying that a birth rate of 1.1 meant the population would halve in one generation, given that the replacement rate is 2.1. What's wrong with the math here?

-------------------------------------

It is a combination of frustrations, a felling of utter impotence and wounded cultural pride, as well as the disillusion of "modernity" (as it is manifested in the Arab world) that brings about the revival of Islam.

The trouble is, Bonzai that you see the Jihadis cropping up everywhere in the dar al-Islam - including such places as Indonesia which Fareed Zakaria held up as an example of Islamic tolerance. It also doesn't explain the way that Islam has always treated Infidels throughout its history.

The doctrine really doesn't change.

-----------------------------

NMcC, sorry about the delay. I'll take it in two parts, it that's okay?

There were genuine grievances to do with Germany's defeat in the First World War;

Genuine grievances over the Treaty of Versaille and imposition of reparations at a time when Germany was suffering catastrophic ecomomic failures;

These economic failures themselves giving the unemployed nothing to look forward to than a nice uniform and a bit of self-image raising marching and thuggery'

A brilliant charismatic saviour figure like Hitler to rally around;

An already existing scapegoat in the form of 'world Jewry'

Well, in reverse order: Islamic anti-semitism is well documented. Charismatic figures seem to keep cropping up in the Islamic community. As for economic failures, I believe Narib agrees with me that the economic sclerosis in places like France is responsible for trapping many young, unemployed men in the ghettos. And finally, I submit that there isn't a practical difference between real and perceived grievances (e.g. you bring up the scapegoat of world jewry). There's the humiliating defeat of the Arab nations at the hands of Israel. There is the total failure of the Islamic world compared to the infidel world. There's a whole bunch of grievances, up to and including the loss of al-Andalus.

Now on to the following:

German nationalists had the entire population of Germany as potential recruits;

There were already existing large numbers of rabid German nationalists;

An already existing police force to do the German nationalist's bidding;

An already existing army to enforce German nationalist expansion;

Well, all of these are absolutely correct. I'll just add two things though: 1) this depends on Muslim numbers remaining small in Europe (the high Islamic proportion of the Russian army is a counter-case in point). 2) Those factors don't apply in the Muslim lands, so there may be something to what Walid Shoebat says, that we may potentially face multiple Nazi Germanies if this lot get their way.

I gave you a better analogy above, which you completely ignored, but which I think reveals the real danger in your proposals.

I'm sorry, NMcC, I must have missed it. I was deep in the argument elsewhere, so I'll go take a look for that analogy now. I din't mean to ignore it.

842. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239949 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Okay, I hate being Pollyanna more than anything else, but this may not be as bad as it sounds. The ADN article says the following:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

What is true, however, is:

The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

That's why I think that this is a good sign - because it shows that even creationists are beginning to get the fact that you can't argue for creationism without making a fool of yourself.

I'm with Hitchens on this: I sharpened my own knowledge of evolution by studying the debate. Heck, my final high-school philosophy essay was based on attacking creationism.

843. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239937 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Answer the question seriously, if that's even possible for you.

----------------------

Jesus, Vin it's getting bad when I turn to you for an argument in the language of reason. Just a few questions: Support of Jihad or for terrorism or for bin Laden - which has waned? If it's the latter, doesn't this have a little something to do with the fact that his gangsters have been targeting fellow Muslims? Oh, I hear all the time about protests by Muslims of terrorism against other Muslims. Any protests about attacks on Infidels?

So, what is the level of support for Jihad? what is the support for Shariah? Those are the relevant questions.

------------------

Bonzai, no question that the basketcase states of the Middle East are fertile incubators of the worst in Islam - but why are they all so failed? Hell, even southern Africa is better off than alot of these places. Why is it that so few natiosn with even 20% Muslim presence is free?

*yawns* Damn it, I'm getting tired; I'll give you a more full response tomorrow, if that's okay, Bonzai. & NMcC I'll respond to you also then. Sorry, but it's late now.

844. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239931 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Um, where are the relativists?
..yet you insist on claiming that anyone who does not agree with you is a relativist and that amounts to being a rapist.

No, I did not claim anything of the sort I was giving an example of the ghastly idea of relativism in action. Now answer me this: do you think that rape is wrong?

Now, a moral absolutist, such as myself, would say that gang-rape is wrong and these sub-humans need to be dealt with, preferably permanently. A moral relativist such as the fatuous idiots on display there would try to find some common ground, try to explain everything away - after all, who are we to say that gang rape is wrong? No moral absolutes remember!

At the start I said that the moral relativist will inevitably end up ordering the robber and the robbed to meet each other halfway. Well, here you can see the relativists ordering the rapists and the raped to meet each other halfway. This is exactly what I was talking about.


You have not pointed out squat, flaws in my logic. You have also still not answered the question: Would the abolition of slavery be a moral good? And to that I'll add another one: Is gang rape wrong? Now answer those damn questions for once.

845. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239922 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm

He did respond, you did not listen.

Then repeat his response here for me. And answer my question: Would you say taht abolishing slavery was morally good?

Everything. There is nothing in your last two posts that I can even read.

Absolutely at the end of my tether by now. If life is a value, then it follows that that which supports it is good, and that which destroys it is evil. This is simple and straightforward. It isn't that you can't read it, it's that you don't want to do so.

846. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239920 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Bonzai,

See, no one disagrees with that. Mphil's objection is that this choice itself cannot be derived from your moral system, it has to be assumed as a starting point.

Which is a point that I made several times before. Yes, you have to choose that as a starting point - you have to choose to live. If you don't want to, well, let nature take its course.

Seriously, what conceivable other defintion for evil can you have than those human actions - or the ideas that if out into practice would mean those actions - that cause unspeakable misery and mass death? Would everyone feel better if instead of referring to a course of action as evil, I just said that it will cause hideous suffering?

You have to know how philosophers play these games. :)

*smiles* Yes, I know. But I see this as a real, definitive problem. If you want to see the muck of relativism run rampant, here's a little taste: in the aftermath of that epidemic of gang rape in Australia, Monroe Reimers of the Sidney Moral Herald wrote the folloiwng:

not confuse justice with revenge. We need answers. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practiced with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."

And in a similar situation in Norway, one norweigan professor wrote:

rape is scarcely punished because it is generally believed that it is women who are responsible for rape.

Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes. Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it

Now do you see why my blood seethes when confronted with relativists?

N.B.: Thanks, btw, for being a decent and honest voice here. I really do appreciate it.

847. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239914 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm

In Europe the decline of religous influence is closely correlated with increasing education and richness. This has been occuring for 100s of years.

Muslims in France at least are as secular as the general populations. I would expect muslims elsewhere to align with the views of the general population also over time.

Unfortunately Nairb, if you go back and look at the old records left by those who visted Egypt two hundred plus years ago, you'll find the same expression of confidence that religious fanaticism would be eroded by the benefits of civilization. It hasn't happened. Then there's the problem that fanaticism actually increases as you correct for literacy and wealth. Look at bin Laden as the example par excellence.

We've run out of time for that fruitless experiment to work.

848. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239912 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Perhaps I can phrase it even more simply Just answer this question:

Would it, or would it not, be morally right to end slavery?

849. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239910 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I don't agree with most of the assertions in that paragraph. Many of them are vague equivocations, and others are false. Pain is advantageous as it allows one to react to and escape a condition that is doing damage to the body.

Yes. Pain. is. a. sign. of. damage. which. is. part. of. our. survival. mechanism.

Sure you can choose to live, and then try and negate the implications of that choice. You can't escape the fact that you will be acting self-destructively. You can choose to encourage injustice; you can't avoid the fact that will cause misery, to everyone including yourself.

Honestly, what is so difficult about this concept? If you choose life as a value, then there are consequences and implications to that choice, since some courses of action will further life and others will act to destroy it. That is obvious.

850. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239899 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm

But on what grounds are "less pain" and "more happiness" good things? I am not implying that they are bad, but the only gauge we have to qualify them as good is our moral view. You can not use your moral view to justify your moral view.

As I said, J Mac, this is based on one, simple choice - and yes, this choice is extra-moral, in a way. It's something you have to decide freely for yourself. And the choice is whether or not to live. When I say soemthing like Justice is a moral value, what I mean is If you want to live, then Justice is a moral value. Pain and misery are signs of death - they are our basic warning systems - so if life is a value, then pain is evil, by definition.

And for chrissakes Quetz - would it honestly kill you to read what I have written on this subject and not throw out a simple one-line comment to one sentence of mine ripped out of context? Jesus I get tired of repeating myself.