Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Love Jihad

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:44:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Muslims deny existence of Love-Jihad movement

When my previous article LOVE JIHAD: A Sinister Design to Convert Hindu and Non-Muslim Girls to Islam by Fake Love has been posted at FFI, a Muslim reader commented that what I have written are false propaganda not supported by evidence or investigations.

Regarding Love Jihad, Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia says:

"Love Jihad was alleged to be conducted in Kerala and Mangalore in the coastal Karnataka region. According to Kerala Catholic Bishops Council, up to 4,500 girls in Kerala have been targeted, whereas Hindu Janajagruti Samiti claimed that 30,000 girls have been converted in Karnataka alone. Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana"general secretary Vellapally Natesan said that there had been reports in Narayaneeya communities of "Love Jihad" attempts. Reports of similar activities have emerged from Pakistan and the United Kingdom."

"The practice is said to be popular on college campuses, and it was on one such case that in early September 2009 two girls—one Hindu and one Christian—indicated that they had been forced to convert by two Muslim youths. The young men, both of whom were members of the Muslim Popular Front of India's student organisation Campus Front, were subsequently arrested and held without bail. Other women have reported similar situations. According to press reports, the purpose of the activity is to force girls to produce children for Islam", adds Wikipedia.

"Love Jihad" campaign appeared to be so serious an issue that the Karnataka government announced its intentions to counter it in October 2009 and ordered a probe into whether it was an organized effort to convert these Hindu and non-Muslim girls, and, if so, by whom it was being funded. The investigation found two cases of conversion of Hindu girls, including what police characterized as kidnapping, forced conversion and marriage of a 17-year-old college girl in Mysore in April 2010. Similar investigation in Kerala in October 2009 revealed, according to police spokesman conducting the probe, that "There are reasons to suspect ‘concentrated attempts' to persuade girls to convert to Islam after they fall in love with Muslim boys".

In another incident, late in December 2009, Justice K T Sankaran of the Kerala High Court, Kochi, heard bail petition for two Muslim youths Shahan Shah and Sirajuddin, who were accused of forcibly converting two women studying MBA. The Judge observed that "Police reports revealed the "blessings of some outfits" for a "concerted" effort for religious conversions, and some 3,000 to 4,000 incidences of which had taken place after love affairs in a four year period." Justice Sankaran found indications of ‘forceful' religious conversions under the garb of fake love and observed "Such ‘deceptive' acts might require legislative intervention to prevent."

Apprehending such conversions were being done with blessings of some fanatic Muslim outfits, said Justice Sankaran, "This should be of great concern to the people at large and the government", adding "The government was bound to protect the fundamental rights and civil rights of citizens. Article 25 of the Constitution (right to freedom of religion) did not entitle a person to indulge in activities for "compulsive religious conversion."

The court, which perused 18 reports produced by the police in a sealed cover, observed that 14 reports were cryptic. One report mentioned about religious conversion centres run by Muslims in Kozhikode city, while another report referred to the functioning of an organization called ‘Smart Front' in two colleges. Another report said an inquiry had revealed that "fundamental outfits such as NDF, PFI and Campus Front" have roots on college campuses in Kozhikode city.

The report further said that Muslim organisations such as the Muslim Youth Forum, Muslim women's organizations such as the Thasreen Millet and Shaheen Force, the PFI, the NDF and its students wing Campus Front were behind the so-called "Love Jihad" movement.

However, investigations both in Karnataka and Kerala found no organization, called "Love Jihad", functioning in those State.

A Few Indian media reports confirming Love Jihad

Many media reports, both Indian and foreign, highlight the existence of a Love-Jihad campaign, operating in Kerala and coastal Karnataka, for large-scale conversion of non-Muslim girls to Islam by feigning love. A few of these reports appeared in the renowned English daily The Times of India are presented below:

A report appeared on Sept 1, 2009 in The Times of India, under the heading Jihadis luring Kerala college girls for love, said:

"The Kerala police has constituted a special team to probe charges that jihadis are running an organized racket in the state's colleges to lure gullible girls in the name of love and then convert them (to Islam) for subsequent use in anti-national activities."

"We are investigating if there is any such design", DGP Jacob Punnose told TOI. What jolted the sleuths into action was a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala high court from the parents of two MBA students. The students were staying in the same hostel at St. John's College in Pathanamthitta district when they met a Muslim boy and grew fond of him.

But the boy proved to be a nuisance to the authorities and was expelled from the college some years ago. "He still managed to retain contact with four junior students, including the two MBA students and feigned love for them. The boy wanted them to get converted to Islam. But one of them suspected his intentions and withdrew, while another developed psychiatric problems. The other two fell for him and eloped ", said the college principal Sreekumaran Nair.

When there was no news of their wards, the parents approached the high court with habeas corpus petitions. The girls were subsequently produced in the court which allowed the parents the custody of their children for a week. When they appeared in the court next, the girls stated that they had been trapped and did not want to go back with the boy and the other was forced to marry his friend, a bus conductor. In their statements given to the police, the students claimed that they were shown jihadi videos and literature by the boy. Expressing concern over the development, the high court asked the police to probe deeper.

"When we searched the hostel, we found provocative literature given by the boy from the rooms of the two girls", the principal said. This was seized by the police who have now extended the probe to other campuses as well they feel this was not an isolated incident. Similar reports have been emerging for quite some time now but were mostly ignored for political reasons', the police source added.'

On October 13, 2009, The Times of India carried another news-report -- under the heading "Love Jihad Racket: VHP, Christian groups find common cause". It reported K S Samson, an office-bearer of Kochi-based Christian Association for Social Action (CASA) saying: "Both Hindu and Christian girls are falling prey to the design. So, we are cooperating with the VHP on tackling this".

VHP on its part set up ‘Hindu Helpline' and claims that it had received as many as 1,500 calls in last three months.

The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council has come out with a set of guidelines for Christian parents warning them to be more careful about their wards. "It is shocking but it is happening. Many Christian families are getting affected", said Father Johny Kochiparambil, secretary of Council's Commission for Social Harmony and vigilance.

Another report appeared under the caption Love Jihad piqued US interest in The Times of India on September 6, 2011, said, "Controversial phenomenon of ‘Love Jihad' – an alleged conspiracy of foreign-funded ‘charming' Muslim men attempting to seduce, marry and convert Hindu and Christian women – had caught the fancy of American diplomats, who in their cables to Washington last year expresse
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:45:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ious tensions in south India'.

The US diplomats in their report from Chennai consulate said, "Both Hindu and Christian groups have expressed fear and outrage at the plot, while Muslim groups have felt the need to defend their coreligionists against the conspiracy theorists."

On November 15, 2011, the Dailybhaskar.com posted a news-report, under the caption "Conversion of two Hindu girls to Islam turns a knotty affair". It ran as follows:

"In Ahmedabad, two incidents of Hindu girls converting to Islam have raised alarm in Karanj police jurisdiction on Monday. The cops have registered two separate FIRs in which the girls are said to have been converted and married to Muslims by the same cleric without the required permission of the district collector."

On Monday, one Bhavarlal Kumavat, 46, a resident of Jalian apartment, near Vastrapur railway crossroad, lodged an FIR with Karanj police station, accusing four people including Akbar Abdul Razak, Haji Mohd Yusuf Pathan, Yasin Malik and Yasin Sheikh.

The complainant claimed that the four forced his daughter to convert to Islam and marry Akbar, the main accused. Bhavarlal alleged that on October 21, his 18-year-old daughter Kavita disappeared. The following day, he received a post containing a certificate informing that his daughter after conversion had become Kausar Bano and married Akbar. Hazi Yusuf Pathan of Nautad masjid in Cheekanta area had performed the ceremony while the two others accused were present as witnesses.

The October 25, 2009 edition of Express India carried a report, under the caption "Love Jihad raises alert in Karnataka, Kerala". It said: The term ‘Love Jihad' used in Kerala and coastal Karnataka to label inter-religious relationship allegedly aimed at converting women to Islam, has started doing its rounds in the courts and administrative circles of both states as well.

It added: The Kerala police has reported to the High Court that they had indications of Muslim youths trying to convert girls to Islam after pretending to fall in love with them.

In Thiruvananthapuram, DGP Jcob Punnoose submitted the report to the High Court which last month had asked the police to probe the reported attempt of Muslim youths to convert Hindu and Christian girls to Islam. Justice K T Sankaran made the directive while rejecting the bail applications of youths, who had allegedly trapped two girls for conversions.

The report said: Police have come across such conversion attempts in many parts of the state. The forces behind the move are suspected to be getting financial support from abroad.

Reaction of a BJP leader on love jihad

UNI reported on October 23, 2009 said that P K Krishna Das, the Kerala state president of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), referring to 972 girls missing in the state, expressed serious concern over "mass conversion" of Hindu girls to Islam in the name of Love Jihad. He warned that "Love jihad", allegedly planned by Muslim youths, would lead to serious and widespread communal riots in Kerala. He also cited that Kasaragod, Kozhikode, Kollam and Malappuram were the major centers of such conversions and asked the State Home Department to take immediate steps to shut down such centers.

He added that Hindu and Christian girls were their primary targets. Muslim boys, pretending that they were sincerely in love, forced these girls to watch videos and made to read books, glorifying Islamic extremism. The girls were later used for smuggling drugs trafficking and other terrorist activities.

Reports by Foreign Media

A report appeared on October 28, 2009 in the Asia Times, written by Sudha Ramachandran, under the heading "India lost in Love'. It said, "As part of an organized campaign young Muslim men are deliberately luring women from different faiths into marriage so they will convert to Islam", say radical Indian Hindu and Christian groups in south India.

The alleged plot has been dubbed "Love Jihad" It first surfaced in September when two Muslim men from Pathanamthitta town in the southern state of Kerala reportedly enticed two women – a Hindu and a Chriatian – into marriage and forced them to convert to Islam.

The women first claimed to have become Muslims voluntarily, but after being allowed back to their parents' houses said they had been abducted and coerced to convert. The men were reportedly members of Campus Front, a student wing of radical Muslim."

A news posted in the ‘BlackBerry Bold' on April 8, 2009 -- under the heading "Love Jihad: girl rescued" – said:

"Mysore: Weeks after a Muslim youth was nabbed for allegedly kidnapping and marrying a minor girl, the district police have labeled it it as case of Love Jihad. The police said that Pooja, 17. IPU student from K R Nagar, Mysore district, was rescued 10 days after she was kidnapped by Azeem Afeez, 22. She is now with her parents. She told the police that Azeem forcefully converted her to Islam before marrying her. She was also rechristened as Meheq Taj. Afeez's parentsd Hassan Idinabba and Raziya, his relatives and Pooja's classmate Sjerin Taj aew absconding.

According to sources, the police are planning a book a lawyer who helped Azeem in legal matters. Azeem fled from his home town Ullala Dakshina, Dakshina Kannada, after he was booked in a robbery case. He took shelter at the residence of his relative Rafiq. Later with the help of Sherin Taj, he trapped Pooja into love in January.

Three days after she went missing on March 1, Pooja's brother Pavan Kumar told the police that the last time he had seen her, she was with Azeem. Following this, the police began tracking Azeem. He took her to various places in Karnataka and Kerala before reaching Ullala. According to police, Azeem also sold Pooja's gold jewelleries to bear his travel and lodging costs. Police are on the look out for his friend Siddiq of K R Nagar and Hassan Kaka of Chikmagalur."

A report posted in CNN-IBNLive on December 23, 2009, under the caption ‘Karnataka High Court flooded with love jihad cases', said:

Many cases continue to be filed in Karnataka High Court related to love affaires and the alleged communal angle despite police investigations revealing no evidence of a love jihad movement. In one such case after three months in court, 20-year-old Silja Raj and her husband Azkar are relieved to be together.

Silja had been ordered to stay with her parents for three weeks after allegation that she was a victim of ‘love jihad'.

Love Jihad hits the UK

UK's Evening Standard ran a report as early as on February 22, 2007 -- under the heading ‘Police protect girls forced to convert to Islam' – which said:

"Extremist Muslims, who force vulnerable teenage girls to convert to Islam, are being targeted by police, Met chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed.

Police are working with universities to clamp down on ‘aggressive conversions' during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses.

The Hindu Forum of Britain claims hundreds of mostly Sikh and Hindu girls have been intimidated by Muslim men who take them out on dates before terrorizing them until they convert..

Sir Ian spoke about the problem at a conference organized by the forum."

Another report in the UK, captioned CALL TO MUSLIMS TO SEDUCE SIKH GIRLS INTO ISLAM, by Clive Gresswell, said:
Call to muslims to seduce Sikh girls into Islam

"A racially explosive leaflet urging Muslim men to – quite literally – seduce Sikh girls into the faith, is being hawked on the streets of Luton.

Although the extreme literature, which suggests the best way to do it would be to get the woman drunk, has been condemned by local Asian leaders it could lead to tension in the town. The leaflets have been given out to Muslim men at different locations in the town, including Luton railway station. One which we obtained says, "It is easy to take the Sikh girls out on a date as they generally like a good drink and from there they can
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:45:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
and from there they can be gradually brought into Islam. We need to send our boys out to bring the Sikh girls into the arms of Islam. The teachings of the great prophet Mohammad must be passed on until the whole world is Islam. The world will only thus be saved.

Under the heading "For Private Circulation", the leaflet advocates ‘converting them by manipulation' as something the Qur'an advocates. It adds, "We call upon our fellow youth to come and join us in our mission for universal and global Islam. The job is big but not impossible. The task is getting easier by the day as the Sikhs and Hindu girls are not taught much about their religion at all. They have a more westernized upbringing."

The school, college and university campuses are ideal places for our youths to carry out their duties easily in this way. Describing other faiths as ‘animalistic', it even adds that Muslims are more attractive and intelligent than other people which should be helpful in the seduction process. Issued by a group calling themselves The Real Khalifah Movement; The eyes, the ears, the voice of Islam, it ends with an appeal for money and a chilling warning: ‘watch this space'. The Muslim man, who handed us the leaflet, did not want to be named.

It may be mentioned here that Luton is a large town and unitary authority of Bedfordshire, England, 30 miles (51 kilometres) north of London. According to the United Kingdom Census 2001, 60% of the inhabitants in Luton are Christian and 15% are Muslim. The full statistics are as follows:

Religion

Luton %

National %

Christian

59.6%

71.7%

Muslim

14.6%

3.0%

Hindu

2.7%

1.1%

Sikh

0.8%

0.6%

Jewish

0.3%

0.5%

Buddhist

0.2%

0.3%

Other

0.3%

0.3%

No religion

14.1%

14.8%

Religion not stated

7.2%

7.7%

Conclusion

The above discussions undoubtedly demonstrate that Muslims in the Indian states Kerala and Karnataka are engaged in covert campaign for large-scale conversion of Hindu and Christian girls in the garb of love. And in this deceptive game, Muslim youths have been found to use all types of illusory tactics, like adoption of false Hind or Christian names and necessary etiquettes to mislead the girls. In the previous article, it has been mentioned that young Muslim men receive financial help at the rate of Rs 200 per day in the initiation stage, and after a successful seduction and conversion of the victim, they receive lucrative rewards starting from Rs 150,000 to Rs 700,000 from the underground organizers of the racket. These organizers receive huge money from the Gulf countries, transferred to them through hawala.

It may be mentioned that Islam allows the perpetrators the crime to any kind lies and deceptions, as the victims are non-Muslims, which is known as taqiyyah (holy deception). Previously, the racket of Love Jihad was confined within the south Indian states of Kerala and Karnataka. But it has now spread into other states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and so on. More importantly, it has spread its tentacles in the UK, and perhaps to other European countries. It is high time that concerted efforts are made to create awareness about this alarming activity of con-artists Muslim Romeos.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:48:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's wrong with this movement?

1. The conversions are forced. I don't have a problem with interracial and interfaith marriages, but I do have a problem with people collecting evidence of people engaged in intimate activities and then using it to blackmail them into conversion.

2. This is a systematic desecration of non-Muslim women. It abuses and reinforces stigma against sexually active women while simultaneously violating the trust that one places in one's intimate partner.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:58:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 9:55:19 AM, medic0506 wrote:
So I guess this means that Fatihah will be getting paid for each of those mature 6-9 year olds that he seduces??

LOL

Well, they target college students, but maybe they'll make special provisions for Faihah.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 10:24:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many media reports, both Indian and foreign, highlight the existence of a Love-Jihad campaign, operating in Kerala and coastal Karnataka, for large-scale conversion of non-Muslim girls to Islam by feigning love.

That's cold.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 10:34:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 9:58:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/14/2012 9:55:19 AM, medic0506 wrote:
So I guess this means that Fatihah will be getting paid for each of those mature 6-9 year olds that he seduces??

LOL

Well, they target college students, but maybe they'll make special provisions for Faihah.

That proves that they know that older women make for more success in reproduction. The younger ones are just for fun, I guess.

It's sad that what would normally be a sick joke on my part is actually a reflection of an active belief system that claims to be peaceful, and respectful of women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 10:39:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it's particularly nonsensical that they are targeting populations that still use arranged marriages to create unions. They're preying on the hopes and dreams of the suppressed college students (who, for the most part, do not like the arranged marriage system) in order to gain converts.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 12:25:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thinking that they'll gain actually devoted converts by this method of trickery is a testament to how warped their thinking is. I wonder if the quran supports this method of gaining converts.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 12:33:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do remember one case from my college. A Muslim boy and a Hindu girl started going out with each other. Somehow the local unit of the fascist organization RSS came to know about it. They immediately claimed that it was a case of 'Love Jihad' and visited the girls home (whose home was near university) and threatened her parents. It was horrible. I am sure neither of them had visualized their friendship in such terms. They broke up later.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 12:33:50 PM, baggins wrote:
I do remember one case from my college. A Muslim boy and a Hindu girl started going out with each other. Somehow the local unit of the fascist organization RSS came to know about it. They immediately claimed that it was a case of 'Love Jihad' and visited the girls home (whose home was near university) and threatened her parents. It was horrible. I am sure neither of them had visualized their friendship in such terms. They broke up later.

I'm not claiming that all interfaith relationships are sinister; in fact, I support interfaith relationships. I just think that this targeting is horrifying.

Also, I am well aware that RSS is an evil organization. Both RSS and Muslim extremists are responsible for the destruction of India.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 9:38:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 12:25:11 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thinking that they'll gain actually devoted converts by this method of trickery is a testament to how warped their thinking is. I wonder if the quran supports this method of gaining converts.

Exactly. Those converts are just converts in name only. I guess it doesn't matter though since their children will be "real" Muslims.
TanusBarbarus
Posts: 124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 6:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 9:55:19 AM, medic0506 wrote:
So I guess this means that Fatihah will be getting paid for each of those mature 6-9 year olds that he seduces??

He gets a bonus for those under 6....
Maintaining the illusion of consciousness since 1969...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:41:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: is this supposed to be a form of evidence? I am sure anybody who really believes in their faith would want to convert someone they are with. So they can just argue that they are two birds with one's stone. There is not much of a case in that direction. You can't make a claim via one ideology against another. It's like saying Islam is better than Christianity, because that just happens to be my ideology.

What is hilarious is there is no reality to A FORCED CONVERSION. It's not even possible, if someone doesn't believe they don't believe, they are protected from that via The Cogito. Nobody can be wrong about their immediate perception.
A Christian or Muslim or any idealist is just someone who believes in whatever ideology. Having the belief is the necessary condition of the title. As Dawkins argues there is no such thing as a Christian child. For they have to know the doctrine to even believe in it. Nor can you really be married if you just say you're not. It's only an idealist predication. The meaning full promise is the necessary/essential condition. You can't be wrong if you don't feel it. But you can lie. That is, if you say yes, in a ritual and really mean no, then you are not really married, because the Physical symbolic (linguistically) proposition is true if and only IF it correctly to your sincere idea. If not it's a false proposition, because it fails to symbolize something.

Most things that mention freedom, presupposed Freewill, which is impossible, so it's not rational from the start.

Freedom of Religious is as ridicules' as it gets. The only real distinction of a religion is that it's unjustified, by reason. That is, I can make up anything and just call it a religion, like any ideology. So then what in the world could be rational to justify freedom of it? How could you possible look someone dead in the eye and speak of Freedom of Religion, when Religion is simply mental oppression. .And people are being killed over this, and others like you claim righteousness. But you're all damn Fools!! <(89)

We get it, you're woman, for woman and you have Indian decent so, us us us, me me me, That is called equality!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:02:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: very curious about the rebutall.. pls give it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:26:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 8:41:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: is this supposed to be a form of evidence? I am sure anybody who really believes in their faith would want to convert someone they are with. So they can just argue that they are two birds with one's stone. There is not much of a case in that direction. You can't make a claim via one ideology against another. It's like saying Islam is better than Christianity, because that just happens to be my ideology.

I don't have problems with conversions as long as they are not forced.
What is hilarious is there is no reality to A FORCED CONVERSION. It's not even possible, if someone doesn't believe they don't believe, they are protected from that via The Cogito.
Very true, but you can force people to live a lifestyle that they don't believe in and raise their children in a faith that they don't believe in. This prevents them from pursuing their own ends since they are not free to practice as they deem fit.

Medic and I already noted that the converts gained from this trickery are probably not very strong converts. It doesn't matter though because they will be forced to raise their children a specific way and their children will be regular Muslims.
Nobody can be wrong about their immediate perception.
A Christian or Muslim or any idealist is just someone who believes in whatever ideology. Having the belief is the necessary condition of the title. As Dawkins argues there is no such thing as a Christian child. For they have to know the doctrine to even believe in it. Nor can you really be married if you just say you're not. It's only an idealist predication. The meaning full promise is the necessary/essential condition. You can't be wrong if you don't feel it. But you can lie. That is, if you say yes, in a ritual and really mean no, then you are not really married, because the Physical symbolic (linguistically) proposition is true if and only IF it correctly to your sincere idea. If not it's a false proposition, because it fails to symbolize something.

This is also true. I'm not going to argue against this. What I am arguing against is forcing people to practice a certain way/carry out specific functions that they are opposed to.
Most things that mention freedom, presupposed Freewill, which is impossible, so it's not rational from the start.

Why is free will impossible?

Plus, even if free will is impossible, I don't see how it justifies oppression/denying freedom.
Freedom of Religious is as ridicules' as it gets. The only real distinction of a religion is that it's unjustified, by reason. That is, I can make up anything and just call it a religion, like any ideology.
Usually there is a standard (worship of a deity/specific set of beliefs).

Also, who cares if anybody can start a religion? Why does that mean that freedom of religion is ridiculous? I should be free to practice it as long as I am not harming others.
So then what in the world could be rational to justify freedom of it?
I should be free to pursue my own ends as long as I do not harm others. It doesn't matter if my beliefs are irrational as long as I"m not violating the rights of others.
How could you possible look someone dead in the eye and speak of Freedom of Religion, when Religion is simply mental oppression.
I don't agree that Religion is mental oppression if people are able to evaluate it and choose whether or not to follow it. Oppression requires denial of the ability to pursue one's own ends. If I accept religion by my own choice, then I am not being oppressed because I chose to accept it.
.And people are being killed over this, and others like you claim righteousness. But you're all damn Fools!! <(89)

I oppose all forms of violence.
We get it, you're woman, for woman and you have Indian decent so, us us us, me me me, That is called equality!
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:44:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:26:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:41:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: is this supposed to be a form of evidence? I am sure anybody who really believes in their faith would want to convert someone they are with. So they can just argue that they are two birds with one's stone. There is not much of a case in that direction. You can't make a claim via one ideology against another. It's like saying Islam is better than Christianity, because that just happens to be my ideology.

I don't have problems with conversions as long as they are not forced.
What is hilarious is there is no reality to A FORCED CONVERSION. It's not even possible, if someone doesn't believe they don't believe, they are protected from that via The Cogito.
Very true, but you can force people to live a lifestyle that they don't believe in and raise their children in a faith that they don't believe in. This prevents them from pursuing their own ends since they are not free to practice as they deem fit.

Medic and I already noted that the converts gained from this trickery are probably not very strong converts. It doesn't matter though because they will be forced to raise their children a specific way and their children will be regular Muslims.
Nobody can be wrong about their immediate perception.
A Christian or Muslim or any idealist is just someone who believes in whatever ideology. Having the belief is the necessary condition of the title. As Dawkins argues there is no such thing as a Christian child. For they have to know the doctrine to even believe in it. Nor can you really be married if you just say you're not. It's only an idealist predication. The meaning full promise is the necessary/essential condition. You can't be wrong if you don't feel it. But you can lie. That is, if you say yes, in a ritual and really mean no, then you are not really married, because the Physical symbolic (linguistically) proposition is true if and only IF it correctly to your sincere idea. If not it's a false proposition, because it fails to symbolize something.

This is also true. I'm not going to argue against this. What I am arguing against is forcing people to practice a certain way/carry out specific functions that they are opposed to.
Most things that mention freedom, presupposed Freewill, which is impossible, so it's not rational from the start.

Why is free will impossible?


Islam is a false religion. It is nothing more than a plot to destroy thr Jews.
Simple and plain.
Plus, even if free will is impossible, I don't see how it justifies oppression/denying freedom.
Freedom of Religious is as ridicules' as it gets. The only real distinction of a religion is that it's unjustified, by reason. That is, I can make up anything and just call it a religion, like any ideology.
Usually there is a standard (worship of a deity/specific set of beliefs).

Also, who cares if anybody can start a religion? Why does that mean that freedom of religion is ridiculous? I should be free to practice it as long as I am not harming others.
So then what in the world could be rational to justify freedom of it?
I should be free to pursue my own ends as long as I do not harm others. It doesn't matter if my beliefs are irrational as long as I"m not violating the rights of others.
How could you possible look someone dead in the eye and speak of Freedom of Religion, when Religion is simply mental oppression.
I don't agree that Religion is mental oppression if people are able to evaluate it and choose whether or not to follow it. Oppression requires denial of the ability to pursue one's own ends. If I accept religion by my own choice, then I am not being oppressed because I chose to accept it.
.And people are being killed over this, and others like you claim righteousness. But you're all damn Fools!! <(89)

I oppose all forms of violence.
We get it, you're woman, for woman and you have Indian decent so, us us us, me me me, That is called equality!
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:05:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What a long post...
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:48:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:26:41 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:41:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: is this supposed to be a form of evidence? I am sure anybody who really believes in their faith would want to convert someone they are with. So they can just argue that they are two birds with one's stone. There is not much of a case in that direction. You can't make a claim via one ideology against another. It's like saying Islam is better than Christianity, because that just happens to be my ideology.

I don't have problems with conversions as long as they are not forced.

The Fool: The problem is that Convertion, are convincings, so its tought to come up with any sense of force that can be distinquishable, especially when you are talking about intellegent woman with MBA's. The only part that is forced would be the kidnapping parts.

What is hilarious is there is no reality to A FORCED CONVERSION. It's not even possible, if someone doesn't believe they don't believe, they are protected from that via The Cogito.

Very true, but you can force people to live a lifestyle that they don't believe in and raise their children in a faith that they don't believe in. This prevents them from pursuing their own ends since they are not free to practice as they deem fit.

The Fool: Good give a distinquishable sense in which thier end our. Especially if our end are always made up of moldings from the combination of genetics and experiences. All you are doing is saying they should have what "YOU" self proclaims via ideology.

Medic and I already noted that the converts gained from this trickery are probably not very strong converts. It doesn't matter though because they will be forced to raise their children a specific way and their children will be regular Muslims.

The Fool: You both don't have legitanite claims of that knowledge you do so as fundementalist. (appeal to popularity fallacy) For example yet's say I am in crazed with ideology, I would actually think by telling them to act in coherence with my ideology is actually the best thing for them. I would think I am doing a blessing and liberating them in some way. Right? <(XD)

Nobody can be wrong about their immediate perception.

A Christian or Muslim or any idealist is just someone who believes in whatever ideology. Having the belief is the necessary condition of the title. As Dawkins argues there is no such thing as a Christian child. For they have to know the doctrine to even believe in it. Nor can you really be married if you just say you're not. It's only an idealist predication. The meaning full promise is the necessary/essential condition. You can't be wrong if you don't feel it. But you can lie. That is, if you say yes, in a ritual and really mean no, then you are not really married, because the Physical symbolic (linguistically) proposition is true if and only IF it correctly to your sincere idea. If not it's a false proposition, because it fails to symbolize something.

This is also true. I'm not going to argue against this. What I am arguing against is forcing people to practice a certain way/carry out specific functions that they are opposed to.

The Fool: By your standard you are forcing. I would say you are forcing your against thier forcing, and you wouldn't be able to justify yours. You woudl have to appeal to something circularly ideological. Which is the whole reason for all these problems in the first place. I agree your are better, then thiers by only by the small occasional reasons over time. In the end you do it for the irrational an unjustified reason. Which hold us down as a humanity. because you treat them like absolute truth threating the rest of the world who disagree with you. Thus preventing the evolution and progress toward even better Moral understandings. And in that way You HURT US!

Most things that mention freedom, presupposed Freewill, which is impossible, so it's not rational from the start.

Why is free will impossible?

The Fool: Because Free is a non-existence, of determination. But would doesn't exist cannot be known. Because its not there. Therefore freewiil and ignorance are cannot be distinguished. In this way they are one in the same. Its getting more of a problem the more we know.

For example we might say that someone swearing at us randomly is an azz. but when we learn the causes, in this case. Lets say a mental disorder, now they are not quilty. Remember they are only disorders insofar as we understand who they couldn't do other wise. That is we call a person acting freely when we are IGNORANCE of the specific reasons.

Plus, even if free will is impossible, I don't see how it justifies oppression/denying freedom.

The Fool: because you couldn't deny what is not there now could you.<(XD)

Freedom of Religious is as ridicules' as it gets. The only real distinction of a religion is that it's unjustified, by reason. That is, I can make up anything and just call it a religion, like any ideology.

Usually there is a standard (worship of a deity/specific set of beliefs).

The Fool: The point they are just ideas, and as true as they ones which produce your hate. They are no more true then unicorns, and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.

Also, who cares if anybody can start a religion? Why does that mean that freedom of religion is ridiculous? I should be free to practice it as long as I am not harming others.

The Fool: Oh yeah by which virtue do you valid shouldness?
I could logically validate shouldness. But Never ever would I stoop low to ideology, that is to give up on morals all together.

So then what in the world could be rational to justify freedom of it?
I should be free to pursue my own ends as long as I do not harm others. It doesn't matter if my beliefs are irrational as long as I"m not violating the rights of others.
How could you possible look someone dead in the eye and speak of Freedom of Religion, when Religion is simply mental oppression.

I don't agree that Religion is mental oppression if people are able to evaluate it and choose whether or not to follow it.

The Fool: I would say we would all want to evolve to the best of are ability. Fundemtalism. stops us dead in our tracks. I would say what stops us dead is an oppression mind. Do you even have a valid definiton for oppression. For we tend to measure oppresion by virtue of who someone else is doing. Like lets say we are ignorance of differences. And a certian group. lets say White males started doing something new and difference. IT seems suddenly you would be oppressed again.
Because that is the only measure you GOT. LMFAO

Oppression requires denial of the ability to pursue one's own ends.

The Fool: Right so stop impossing what you consider your end would be.

The Fool: If I accept religion by my own choice, then I am not being oppressed because I chose to accept it.

The Fool: I accept the moon is Cheese by my own choice. You can't even demonstrate you own choice. You can't even show what that means \. You just believe it because it agrees with you. All you would be able to say is that It is my own choice as far as I am IGNORANT of the influences. RIGHT? <(XD) So I am perfectly in a just position to say YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!! (if this is false show us)

The Fool: Who cares if you agree, who cares what you think. Its what can you justify? we all have believes and thoughts.

.And people are being killed over this, and others like you claim righteousness. But you're all damn Fools!! <(89)

I oppose all forms of violence.

The Fool: Just when its against your cause. You are a cause of violence, you just promote it from a Far! In so far as you are an ideologist you are and will always BE THE PROBLEM!!

We get it, you're woman, for woman and you have Indian decent so,
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:58:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: pls rebute, I want to make sure I didn't miss anything.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:02:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: its important to not that I am not even disagreeing with alot of what you argueing for. I think all ideology is BAD. I think its all bad news bears. Your is lesser the problem, but it is still the next problem after that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:05:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: If you are of the JUST and the GOOD. Then what I am saying should create cognitive dissonance. For I say you should join the side of The Good.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:19:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The problem is that Convertion, are convincings, so its tought to come up with any sense of force that can be distinquishable, especially when you are talking about intellegent woman with MBA's. The only part that is forced would be the kidnapping parts.

I don't think you read the articles.

The tactics that they use to convert them are unscrupulous. They prey on their hopes and dreams by pretending to love them, take photos of them engaging in what society considers to be corrupt activities, and then blackmail them with those photos.

If they show the photos to the parents of the women they blackmail, the women will promptly be turned away from their homes.

Thus, the choice they give them is between conversion and marriage to an Islamic friend (not to the seducer himself) or to be homeless.

They aren't getting the converts through reason; the converts are blackmailed.

The Fool: Good give a distinquishable sense in which thier end our. Especially if our end are always made up of moldings from the combination of genetics and experiences. All you are doing is saying they should have what "YOU" self proclaims via ideology.

It doesn't matter if our ends are a mold of genetics and experiences. Each individual's self-worth stems from her ability to pursue her own ends. I don't have to advocate for a general sense of ends because each person can choose what to value. All I advocate is choice.


The Fool: You both don't have legitanite claims of that knowledge you do so as fundementalist. (appeal to popularity fallacy) For example yet's say I am in crazed with ideology, I would actually think by telling them to act in coherence with my ideology is actually the best thing for them. I would think I am doing a blessing and liberating them in some way. Right? <(XD)

Yes, and that's completely fine. However, blackmailing them with sexual photographs amounts to coercion and is unjust. It violates conceptions of liberty as non-domination (we can debate about whether or not liberty consists of non-domination or non-interference if you want).

The Fool: By your standard you are forcing. I would say you are forcing your against thier forcing, and you wouldn't be able to justify yours.
Bull.

I'm not forcing against their forcing. I'm advocating preventing them from dominating others so that others can choose which ends to value and how to live their lives.

In any case, any conception of rights notes that we should prevent people from violating the rights of others. That doesn't amount to illegitimate force since it's a response to illegitimate force in hopes of protecting others.
You woudl have to appeal to something circularly ideological. Which is the whole reason for all these problems in the first place.
Why is my ideology circular?
I agree your are better, then thiers by only by the small occasional reasons over time. In the end you do it for the irrational an unjustified reason. Which hold us down as a humanity. because you treat them like absolute truth threating the rest of the world who disagree with you. Thus preventing the evolution and progress toward even better Moral understandings. And in that way You HURT US!

So by preventing people from dominating others, I am harming humanity? If people like me didn't exist to advocate non-domination, humanity would still be tied down in slavery.

The Fool: Because Free is a non-existence, of determination. But would doesn't exist cannot be known. Because its not there. Therefore freewiil and ignorance are cannot be distinguished. In this way they are one in the same. Its getting more of a problem the more we know.

Ok, your logic is pretty faulty.

P1: Free-will is the absence of determination (you say non-existence)
P2: What doesn't exist can't be known

This is part of the flaw in your logic. You define the state of free will as a state of non-existence of determination (should properly be defined as absence since there would be no constraints on choice). Why are you assuming that what doesn't exist can't be known? I know what a unicorn is, and it doesn't exist. Also, you are changing the premise. P1 says that determination doesn't exist, not that free-will doesn't exist. If what doesn't exist can't be known then determination can't be known, not free will (since free will is the absence of determination).

C: Free-will is ignorance.

See above.
For example we might say that someone swearing at us randomly is an azz. but when we learn the causes, in this case. Lets say a mental disorder, now they are not quilty. Remember they are only disorders insofar as we understand who they couldn't do other wise. That is we call a person acting freely when we are IGNORANCE of the specific reasons.
.
Why does this negate the existence of free will in general? Perhaps there are some people who are controlled by factors that prevent them from exercising free will, but that doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist.

Plus your argument is pretty faulty. All it says is that we are doing wrong by presuming that people who do monstrous things are doing it out of free will. However, the reason we presume this is that in general, people have free will. Most people are not mentally incompetent. There is no reason to presume determinism since most people can exercise free-will. Plus, your argument really just attacks the idea of presumption. If I presume that people are determined, am I not ignorant when I discover that they do not have mental disorders? You should be equating presumption with ignorance, and not free will with ignorance.


The Fool: The point they are just ideas, and as true as they ones which produce your hate. They are no more true then unicorns, and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.

It still doesn't matter. People should be able to create their own idea, no matter how flawed you personally think they are, as long as they do not harm others.

The Fool: Oh yeah by which virtue do you valid shouldness?
I could logically validate shouldness. But Never ever would I stoop low to ideology, that is to give up on morals all together.

Should is justified by a sense of contractual obligation.

The Fool: I would say we would all want to evolve to the best of are ability. Fundemtalism. stops us dead in our tracks. I would say what stops us dead is an oppression mind.
Fundamentalism involves the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines. You are wrongfully equating religious freedom with fundamentalism. I'm not advocating forcing people to strictly follow specific religions; I am advocating choice (letting them choose for themselves).
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:25:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you even have a valid definiton for oppression. For we tend to measure oppresion by virtue of who someone else is doing.
Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. I measure oppression through the unjust violation of rights.
Like lets say we are ignorance of differences. And a certian group. lets say White males started doing something new and difference. IT seems suddenly you would be oppressed again.
Because that is the only measure you GOT. LMFAO

You literally just made that up. How am I being oppressed if people start doing something different as long as they aren't interfering with my ability to choose what I want to do? That's not in line with philosophical liberalism at all. You just concocted that nonsensical measure; it's not even a strawman because it had nothing to do with my argument.
The Fool: Right so stop impossing what you consider your end would be.

I'm not imposing my ends on others. I'm arguing that nobody should impose their ends on others and that people should choose their own ends.

The Fool: I accept the moon is Cheese by my own choice.
Ok, so you're not being oppressed. Now, if I flog you until you claim that the moon is cheese, then you are being oppressed. If I blackmail you until you claim that the moon is cheese, then you are being oppressed. If you willingly choose to claim that the moon is choose, how can I be oppressing you?
You can't even demonstrate you own choice. You can't even show what that means \. You just believe it because it agrees with you. All you would be able to say is that It is my own choice as far as I am IGNORANT of the influences. RIGHT? <(XD) So I am perfectly in a just position to say YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!! (if this is false show us)

Freedom isn't being free from influences. It's being free from ARBITRARY and UNJUST influences. In that case, you made the choice on your own; nobody was arbitrarily or unjustly influencing you. Therefore, it was your choice to have that belief.
The Fool: Who cares if you agree, who cares what you think. Its what can you justify? we all have believes and thoughts.

Do you want to debate my philosophy? I'll issue the challenge.
The Fool: Just when its against your cause. You are a cause of violence, you just promote it from a Far!

LOL, so advocating the eradication of violence is promoting violence from afar? I think you are the fundie.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:51:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:19:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The Fool: The problem is that Convertion, are convincings, so its tought to come up with any sense of force that can be distinquishable, especially when you are talking about intellegent woman with MBA's. The only part that is forced would be the kidnapping parts.

royalpaladin: I don't think you read the articles

The Fool: Starting to lose your cool now are you. Here comes the insults. LOL. Are you stil able to intellegently defend yourself? I read what you wrote. They are hearsays of hearsays. You are reacting strong from your own self biased.

royalpaladin:: The tactics that they use to convert them are unscrupulous.

The Fool: I know what you saying? But I am saying YOU as a appose to me are thinkging so just on your personal bias and not out of virtue.
You can't see that the just as you think you are self-evidently justified, they think they are justified by God. So to them its not bad. To get out you need a non-relativist argument.

royalpaladin:They prey on their hopes and dreams by pretending to love them, take photos of them engaging in what society considers to be corrupt activities, and then blackmail them with those photos.

The Fool: You tell people what they are doing and thinking and speak as thoughtyou speak for God. In that people who disagree with you don't know they are really doing bad thing subconsciously. But you know via NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL!!>

Royalpaladin:: If they show the photos to the parents of the women they blackmail, the women will promptly be turned away from their homes. Thus, the choice they give them is between conversion and marriage to an Islamic friend (not to the seducer himself) or to be homeless.

The Fool: You are right ITs all BAD. I am not ignorance of the immorality, I am saying you are a part of it, as well. Proof, try and refute my argument. lol

Royalpaladin:: They aren't getting the converts through reason; the converts are blackmailed.

The Fool: I know its all irrational. So are you.

The Fool: Good give a distinquishable sense in which thier end our. Especially if our end are always made up of moldings from the combination of genetics and experiences. All you are doing is saying they should have what "YOU" self proclaims via ideology.

Royalpaladin:: It doesn't matter if our ends are a mold of genetics and experiences.

The Fool: Good now rationally defend that claim. Do you see the difference between us here?

Royalpaladin: Each individual's self-worth stems from her ability to pursue her own ends.

The Fool: That doesn't even make sense! Justify. I am not a part of your Religion. I am a rational philosopher. Justify!!!!!! or sink!

Royalpaladin: I don't have to advocate for a general sense of ends because each person can choose what to value. All I advocate is choice.

The Fool: HAHAHAHHAHHA!. Say what now? how is going where and how?
who cares what you advocate. what can you JUSTIFY!!!! You don't even know what choice is?


The Fool: You both don't have legitanite claims of that knowledge you do so as fundementalist. (appeal to popularity fallacy) For example yet's say I am in crazed with ideology, I would actually think by telling them to act in coherence with my ideology is actually the best thing for them. I would think I am doing a blessing and liberating them in some way. Right? <(XD)

Royalpaladin:: Yes, and that's completely fine.

The Fool: I know and there is no way for you to argue against it because its already the rational side. You dont' have a choice. It either be rational or be Crazy.

Royalpaladin: However, blackmailing them with sexual photographs amounts to coercion and is unjust.

The Fool: You have not been able to respond to my proofs, what is blackmailing to someone who things they are doing the best thing they can for somebody, not even for selfish reasons like your but for God. (I don;t agree with this I am exposing you IGNORANCE. so we can see it clearly and distinctly)

Royalpaladin: It violates conceptions of liberty as non-domination (we can debate about whether or not liberty consists of non-domination or non-interference if you want).

The Fool: Why are such conceptions GOOD!>. lol. YOu are appealing to ideology and popularity,. I know those conceptions/ideas I know they are popular. But I represent the revolutionary youth that challanges the old conception to put thier evolution forward. You hold us back. "Liberty" is a physical Symbol, a word. What is there to discuss. Its physical word "liberty" word presuppose "ideas" the Idea you refer to when you say the world. And the "Ideas" IF TRUE coherespond to the actual object/subject.

Review:

Word->idea->object/subject

For if the liberty is an existing thing then its impossible to discuss what it is why?>

Because what is IS. A thing in it self is a thing in itself. YOU ARE JUST PLAYING LANGUAGE GAMES> YOU ARE LIVING AN ILLUSION> THEY ARE NOT| REAL |THINGS>

You are and all of your priests, and the rest of you are just arging what you a WORD should mean. ITS RIDICULAS?

CAN YOU REFUTE THIS OR NOT!! If not forever hold your piece.

This is part one!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Starting to lose your cool now are you. Here comes the insults.
Sorry, but I don't think that pointing out the fact that you didn't read the article is an insult. It's really just a note to you that you should read what you are defending before you defend it. You thought I was arguing against conversion, but I was arguing against conversion through blackmail.
LOL. Are you stil able to intellegently defend yourself? I read what you wrote. They are hearsays of hearsays. You are reacting strong from your own self biased.

We'll see.


The Fool: I know what you saying? But I am saying YOU as a appose to me are thinkging so just on your personal bias and not out of virtue.
You can't see that the just as you think you are self-evidently justified, they think they are justified by God. So to them its not bad. To get out you need a non-relativist argument.

Ah, but my position isn't relativist. It's based on liberal universalism.

There is not a single society that has not valued individual liberty. Just because some people reject it doesn't mean it is falsified. Even Brahmanical societies valued liberty for the top castes, and when alternative philosophies (Bhakti movement, Buddhism, and Sikhism) emerged, the lower classes migrated to them in droves in order to escape restrictions on individual liberty.

Even authoritarian societies value liberty. They just restrict who they allocate it to. That doesn't mean that they don't believe that liberty is valuable; rather, it means that they want to restrict it.

Now, your contention is that they think they are justified by their God. That's a key point. They THINK they are justified. That doesn't mean that they actually are. Show me a single passage in the Koran that justifies blackmail and sexuality to force women to convert.
The Fool: You tell people what they are doing and thinking and speak as thoughtyou speak for God. In that people who disagree with you don't know they are really doing bad thing subconsciously. But you know via NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL!!>

My justification stems from the idea that people should be free to value their own ends . . . It's not NO justification. I'm giving a justification.

How abut this: name one philosophical principle that does not depend on assumption.

The Fool: You are right ITs all BAD. I am not ignorance of the immorality, I am saying you are a part of it, as well. Proof, try and refute my argument. lol

How am I a part of it if I am advocating against it?

The Fool: I know its all irrational. So are you.

You're just using ad hominems now. You haven't shown WHY my principles are false. You're just claiming that they're not universal. Name a single moral principle that is accepted by all people.

The Fool: Good now rationally defend that claim. Do you see the difference between us here?

No. You are using non sequitors. Your claim is that determinism is true, and therefore, there freedom is not important to uphold. My contention is that even if our preferences are in part predetermined, that doesn't mean that we don't have a right to pursue them. You haven't attacked this.
Royalpaladin: Each individual's self-worth stems from her ability to pursue her own ends.


The Fool: That doesn't even make sense! Justify.
Simple.

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends (drawn from utilitarianism).

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends (henceforth called autonomy). We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. (This is drawn from Gauthier's theory of contractualism.) If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth (drawn from Kant).

I am not a part of your Religion. I am a rational philosopher. Justify!!!!!! or sink!

Actually, I haven't seen you justify your philosophy ether.


The Fool: HAHAHAHHAHHA!. Say what now? how is going where and how?
who cares what you advocate. what can you JUSTIFY!!!! You don't even know what choice is?

See the theory I outlined above.
\
Royalpaladin: However, blackmailing them with sexual photographs amounts to coercion and is unjust.

The Fool: You have not been able to respond to my proofs, what is blackmailing to someone who things they are doing the best thing they can for somebody, not even for selfish reasons like your but for God. (I don;t agree with this I am exposing you IGNORANCE. so we can see it clearly and distinctly)

The thing is, it's sometimes difficult to decipher your arguments, so if I haven't dejustified your proofs, it's because I haven't seen them in the first place (although I did dismantle that nonsense about free will being ignorance).

The blackmail is wrong for several reasons.

1. The ends do not justify the means. It doesn't matter if I am doing something in order to help them; this doesn't justify taking unjust actions in the first place. For example, if I kill your parents in order to make you agree with me, I am doing something unjust because the means through which I arrive at the ends are unjust. Part of the action involves injustice.

2. Paternalism is inherently wrong because it denigrates self-worth and prevents individuals from pursuing their own ends and thus achieving happiness. You could argue that in the long run, we are making them happy, but it doesn't matter insofar as it is still violating conceptions of self-worth. What makes people happy is subjective, and we shouldn't mentally condition them to accept specific conceptions of happiness just because we think they are higher.


The Fool: Why are such conceptions GOOD!>.
The problem is that most of us assume that these things are good and thus operate on a higher level when we discuss ideas. I shouldn't have to justify the same philosophy every time I post.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:34:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
However, I contend that the non-domination principle is better than the non-interference principle insofar as the non-interference principle still permits people to restrict liberty.

Phillip Pettit observes, "The ideal of non-interference is sociologically too poor to recognize that it is possible to have your freedom as discursive control severely challenged by agents and agencies that have a power of arbitrary interference in your life. Domination comes in many forms. Think of the child of the emotionally volatile parents, the wife of the occasionally violent husband, or the pupil of the teacher who forms arbitrary likes and dislikes. Think of the employee whose security requires keeping the manager or the boss sweet, the welfare recipient whose fortunes turn on the mood of the counter clerk, of the young offender whose level of punishment depends on how far politicians are willing to whip up a culture of vengeance. In all of these cases, someone lives at the mercy of others. That person is dominated by those others in the sense that even if others don't interfere in his or her life, they have an arbitrary power of doing so; there are few restraints or costs to inhibit them. And so far as the person is subject to domination of this kind, they are bound to censor and inhibit what they do, so that the net effect on their behavior will be just as deep as any that active interference might be achieved."