Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics

by Guest Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:28 pm

First topic message reminder :

In Pakistan, a bill that would prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after Muslim clerics declared the ban to be “un-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The Express Tribune reports the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony rejected the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) dubbed it “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The proposed legislation had recommended harsher punishments for those entering conjugal contracts with minors.

Technically, Pakistan’s Child Marriage Restraint Act (CMRA) of 1929 sets the legal age for marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men. However, this law is often unenforced and punishment for breaking the law is negligible because Pakistani religious scholars believe it is not in accordance with Islamic teachings.

The proposed legislation sought to remedy this problem by calling for “rigorous” punishment of up to two years in prison for those who organise child marriages, still common in many parts of Pakistan.

In other words, up to two years in prison for what is in essence the facilitation of child rape is considered “rigorous” punishment, and rejected by religious scholars as being “un-Islamic.”

In recent years reformists have been working to prevent and prohibit the abhorrent and barbaric practice of child marriage sanctioned by so many Islamic scholars. However, attempts to prohibit child marriage has met strong and sustained resistance by many Muslim scholars.

For example, in 2011, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Most Muslim scholars in support of child marriage note that nowhere does Sharia (or Islamic law) set an age limit for marrying girls.

However, perhaps most significant, and the biggest challenge to those attempting to reform Islam, and put an end to child marriage sanctioned by so many Islamic scholars, is the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was only six or seven, and “consummated” the marriage when she was nine.

For many Muslims, to condemn child marriage is to condemn Muhammad. And for many Muslims, this is simply too much to ask.

As always, it is the children who suffer.

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/pakistan-ban-on-child-marriage-blocked-by-islamic-clerics/#sthash.4bZaGfNQ.dpuf

by Guest Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:59 pm

Poor excuse Quill for not addressing my points

You are not obligated to either but it just strengthens my case if you do not

Hey ho, not worried so I guess this debate is concluded between yourself and I

by Original Quill Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:01 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Same advice to you, eds. Take a little time to improve your own cognition. It's all right there, and I'm available for a reasonable time for any questions. Help yourself.

I did help myself.
I asked you a question, you didn't answr it then said you're available for any questions.

Doesn't matter now.

See my response to Didge, two posts above. I don't have the time for your lack of initiative. Look up what you don't understand, and then put it all together. Learning is energy; you have to put something into it.

by Guest Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:03 pm

lol very condescending when the fact is you had no valid point only appeasement to human right abuses to children in Pakistan

by Original Quill Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:07 pm

Didge wrote:lol very condescending when the fact is you had no valid point only appeasement to human right abuses to children in Pakistan

More judgement, didge? We only have so much time to devote to your feelings...and they are mostly predictable. Bye.

by Guest Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:09 pm

Have a nice day Quill

by eddie Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:lol considering you failed to address all my points, maybe you should take some of the advice you gave to Eddie

Its clear Nicko was being lighthearted

Not only that but quill says he knows Nicko is in a wheelchair and then calls him lazy in the first line of his post.

Absolutely. It doesn't take mobility, which is my point. The computer is right in front of him.

It's the same for you, eds. What's your excuse?

I didn't say I needed a dictionary lol

Have you been smoking a spliff cos your memory is bad?
If you haven't, go and smoke one, cos your mood is also bad.

by nicko Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:17 pm

I sometime try to inject a little humour into this forum.

Am I wasting my time?

by Guest Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:22 pm

nicko wrote:I sometime try to inject a little humour into this forum.

Am I wasting my time?

lol no Nicko, I saw you were being lighthearted

Sometimes you crack me up with what you say, as it can be very witty

by Original Quill Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:22 pm

Didge, I thought I would help you out by giving you this disquisition on the "Fact/Value Distinction". It's a very simplistic explanation, which you should have no problem digesting:

Charles Trololone wrote:The Fact/Value Distinction

Better understood as "what is" (fact) and "what ought to be" (value), the fact/value distinction is the thin line between what is truth and what is right. It is the source of conflict between science and ethics. In its most basic sense, fact can be defined as the inarguable truths of our physical world - the material surroundings which one detects via the senses. By examining our reality through scientific methods, we hope to empirically and logically verify truths and thus to compile a collection of "knowledge". Value, on the other hand, is not accessible via the senses; it can only be derived through one's own subjective reasoning about ethics. Unlike fact, value cannot be proven true or false by any sort of scientific method. Rather, it must be compared against one's own faith or ethical worldview in order to draw personal conclusive results.

The inability to scientifically prove the Boolean value of what "ought to be" has brought about a view that what science can tell is limited. Because science has access to the tangible materials of our world, it only seems logical to conclude that if matter is all that truly exists then all value may be explained through science with future techniques which are yet undeveloped. The moderate outlook on science, however, recognizes that value may certainly never be explained purely through knowledge of the material world. It appears that this latter moderate view is more accurate, for it can be shown that every argument of value must somehow rely upon a separate "ought statement" which has already been deemed true prior to the matter at hand.

Consider the following logic:

-A mother cannot survive without a transfusion of her son's rare blood type. (what is)
-It's only right for the son to help his dying mother. (what ought to be)
-Giving blood involves no risk whatsoever. (what is)
-The son ought to donate blood to his mother. (what ought to be)

The final claim is reached through a series of logical steps. Though the final idea seems to derive from sound reasoning, it is still based in part on the premise that it's only right for the son to help his dying mother. All "ought to" statements, like this one, can only be reached through previous value judgments.

What is right or wrong, or what should be held with regard above other things, is purely subjective. It is worthwhile to note that ought-statements differ from fact-statements in that factual assertions hold the ability to inadvertently create cause and effect in everyday life. For example: Because it's true that somebody set fire to my house, I am in danger and my reality has been directly affected. However, whether or not I believe it is acceptable for someone to burn down my home, it does not affect the fact that I am in great danger.

The fact/value distinction is an important element in our modern world, for without value there would be no culture. As science slowly progresses in gaining knowledge about issues where religion or cultural norms once dominated, it is affecting ethical decisions by helping us understand what is physically possible or impossible. However, there will always remain ethical frameworks which cannot themselves be proven or disproven by science.

--Charlie Tronolone

Sources:

Greene, Joshua. "From neural 'is' to moral 'ought'." Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, Oct 2003: 847-50.

O'Hear, Anthony. Philosophy, the good, the true, and the beautiful. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Welsh, Paul. Fact, value, and perception : essays in honor of Charles A. Baylis. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1975.

Ethnocentrism is a form of value discussion in which one judges another culture by uses of the standards of his own culture. We frequently hear, for example, about the British sense of humor. It becomes an ethnocentric discussion is someone brings in judgment: The British have a nasty attitude when they tell jokes (I use personal examples because they relate better).

We see these kinds of things best when we are judged: "The British treat women unequally..they make them use separate restrooms." In this instance, you are left sputtering, ...but you don't understand! Yes...then you are into a value discussion, which is futile because values are purely subjective.

I hope this helps.

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:28 pm

Lol so now a false charge that the British treat women unequal, where British laws far surpass American on equality for women in the UK
Sorry the above was nothing more than a load of irrelevant gobbledygook, which again is you deflecting from the problem at hand
You seem to have this really absurd view that well its okay they have child brides because there is some problems in the west
That is essentially what you are trying to say when the problems are separate and you are trying to make things not comparable combine
Women and children have far more protection from human rights abuses than they do in Pakistan, and to even compare them is an insult to the laws we have that protect them.

Now if you are telling me from the above it is right to allow child abuse to continue without condemning this and campaigning for it stop, you insult every person whop has helped progress society forward in the last centuries

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:31 pm

Criticisms[edit]
Virtually all modern philosophers affirm some sort of fact-value distinction, insofar as they distinguish between science and "valued" disciplines such as ethics, aesthetics, or the fine arts. However, philosophers such as Hilary Putnam argue that the distinction between fact and value is not as absolute as Hume envisioned.[6] Philosophical pragmatists, for instance, believe that true propositions are those that are useful or effective in predicting future (empirical) states of affairs.[7] Far from being value-free, the pragmatists' conception of truth or facts directly relates to an end (namely, empirical predictability) that human beings regard as normatively desirable. Other thinkers reject an absolutist fact-value distinction by contending that our senses are impregnated with prior conceptualizations, making it impossible to have any observation that is totally value-free, which is how Hume and the later positivists conceived of facts.

Functionalist counterexamples[edit]
Several counterexamples have been offered by philosophers claiming to show that there are cases when an evaluative statement does indeed logically follow from a factual statement. A. N. Prior points out, from the statement "He is a sea captain," it logically follows, "He ought to do what a sea captain ought to do."[8] Alasdair MacIntyre points out, from the statement "This watch is grossly inaccurate and irregular in time-keeping and too heavy to carry about comfortably,", the evaluative conclusion validly follows, "This is a bad watch."[9] John Searle points out, from the statement "Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars," it logically follows that "Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars." The act of promising by definition places the promiser under obligation.[10]

The recognition problem[edit]
There is a criticism of the concept of reason being the slave of passion based on questioning the possibility of emotion existing independently of recognition. Some critics argue that "pure" emotions on their own would be unable to recognize anything and therefore unable to tell something good from something bad, and that emotions on their own could not correct for a change in recognition.[11]

Moral realism[edit]
Philippa Foot adopts a moral realist position, criticizing the idea that when evaluation is superposed on fact there has been a “committal in a new dimension.”[12] She introduces, by analogy, the practical implications of using the word “injury.” Not just anything counts as an injury. There must be some impairment. When we suppose a man wants the things the injury prevents him from obtaining, haven’t we fallen into the old naturalist fallacy?

It may seem that the only way to make a necessary connexion between 'injury' and the things that are to be avoided, is to say that it is only used in an 'action-guiding sense' when applied to something the speaker intends to avoid. But we should look carefully at the crucial move in that argument, and query the suggestion that someone might happen not to want anything for which he would need the use of hands or eyes. Hands and eyes, like ears and legs, play a part in so many operations that a man could only be said not to need them if he had no wants at all.[13]

Foot argues that the virtues, like hands and eyes in the analogy, play so large a part in so many operations that it is implausible to suppose that a committal in a non-naturalist dimension is necessary to demonstrate their goodness.

Philosophers who have supposed that actual action was required if 'good' were to be used in a sincere evaluation have got into difficulties over weakness of will, and they should surely agree that enough has been done if we can show that any man has reason to aim at virtue and avoid vice. But is this impossibly difficult if we consider the kinds of things that count as virtue and vice? Consider, for instance, the cardinal virtues, prudence, temperance, courage and justice. Obviously any man needs prudence, but does he not also need to resist the temptation of pleasure when there is harm involved? And how could it be argued that he would never need to face what was fearful for the sake of some good? It is not obvious what someone would mean if he said that temperance or courage were not good qualities, and this not because of the 'praising' sense of these words, but because of the things that courage and temperance are.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction#Criticisms

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:39 pm

There Are 27 Countries Better At Gender Equality Than The U.S.

Equality is supposed to be the United States' thing, but when it comes to women, the country is falling behind, according to a comprehensive global ranking of 145 countries released Wednesday evening by the World Economic Forum.
The U.S. dropped eight spots on the list to 28th place -- just above Cuba and below Mozambique -- for overall gender equality, which the World Economic Forum measures by examining publicly available data on economic participation, political empowerment, educational attainment and health measures. The Geneva-based nonprofit, known for its annual super-elite business conference in Davos, has been measuring the gap between women and men for each category for the past 10 years.

Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics - Page 4 564cfa031e00002e00264d5d

WEF

The U.S. fell behind on the politics front, as the number of women in cabinet-level positions dropped to just 26 percent from 32 percent. The drop offset a slight rise in the percentage of women in Congress. That's unfortunate because research has found that the more women that participate in politics, the more likely a country is to have policies that promote gender equality.
Considering the political situation, it shouldn't then be too surprising that we are also slumping on the economics front, as the report found. The U.S. fell behind there because the percentage of women working or looking for work dropped last year, and the wage gap between men and women grew, explained Saadia Zahidi, head of the Global Challenge on Gender Parity at the World Economic Forum.
Of course, the U.S. isn't a terrible place for women -- the ranking just looks at the gap in opportunity between men and women. That's why some countries that obviously offer less economic opportunity to both men and women are ahead of the country on the list. As more women have entered the workforce, U.S. policies on paid parental leave and childcare haven't kept pace. Nor have most businesses adapted to the new reality where women aren't at home taking care of employees' personal lives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/there-are-27-countries-better-at-gender-equality-than-the-us_us_564cb447e4b031745cef15d8

by Original Quill Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:48 pm

Didge wrote:Lol so now a false charge that the British treat women unequal, where British laws far surpass American on equality for women in the UK

It was meant as an example, distinguishable by it's absurdity. What did I say ("I use personal examples because they relate better")?

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Lol so now a false charge that the British treat women unequal, where British laws far surpass American on equality for women in the UK

It was meant as an example, distinguishable by it's absurdity. What did I say ("I use personal examples because they relate better")?

But your examples were poor and not even comparable which was the point.
The only matter of concern here is whether you believe children should have laws to protect them from abuse? Whether you believe a child has the mental and physical capacity to consent to marriage and sex? And is you do believe they are then what is then to stop also the same being applied to allow children to do many other things like working, drinking, driving, smoking etc at far lower legal age?

Nothing else matters on this area here after all your deflections throughout

by Original Quill Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:59 pm

Didge wrote:Sorry the above was nothing more than a load of irrelevant gobbledygook, which again is you deflecting from the problem at hand
You seem to have this really absurd view that well its okay they have child brides because there is some problems in the west
That is essentially what you are trying to say when the problems are separate and you are trying to make things not comparable combine
Women and children have far more protection from human rights abuses than they do in Pakistan, and to even compare them is an insult to the laws we have that protect them.

There you are, back again ignoring the fact/value distinction. "Irrelevant gobbledygook?" "Deflecting from the problem at hand?" "Child brides?" No...I'm saying that you are swimming in your judgments, and have no tolerance for others from a different culture.

Maybe you might undertake some introspection into your Mediterranean background. I was married to a Sicilian woman. Sicily, as you know, is very close to Malta. She, too, had a very difficult time understanding diverse cultures, and was intolerant (judgmental) of the values coming out of them. It seems to be that the farther one moves away from British rationalism, the less tolerant one becomes.

Anyway, it's a thought.

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Sorry the above was nothing more than a load of irrelevant gobbledygook, which again is you deflecting from the problem at hand
You seem to have this really absurd view that well its okay they have child brides because there is some problems in the west
That is essentially what you are trying to say when the problems are separate and you are trying to make things not comparable combine
Women and children have far more protection from human rights abuses than they do in Pakistan, and to even compare them is an insult to the laws we have that protect them.

There you are, back again ignoring the fact/value distinction. "Irrelevant gobbledygook?" "Deflecting from the problem at hand?" "Child brides?" No...I'm saying that you are swimming in your judgments, and have no tolerance for others from a different culture.

Maybe you might undertake some introspection into your Mediterranean background. I was married to a Sicilian woman. Sicily, as you know, is very close to Malta. She, too, had a very difficult time understanding diverse cultures, and was intolerant (judgmental) of the values coming out of them. It seems to be that the farther one moves away from British rationalism, the less tolerant one becomes.

Anyway, it's a thought.

There you go again thinking that a value that Philosophers disagree on is a standard measure when it is not.
You do not get to decide the parameters of the debate
I am not swimming in any judgments but looking at this psychologically something you have failed to do from the start. Where you fail to grasp that a child is not psychologically of s sound state of mind to decide or consent because they are fundamentally immature on so many levels at this age. That is what you fail to grasp, and where both philosophy and psychology are both subjective, I place more stock in where psychology at least has some empirical evidence, so you can stick your fact/value where the sun does not shine for all I care. Not only that there is the physical and mental damage implications to consider here.

So again what matters here which you avoid at all costs is the following

The only matter of concern here is whether you believe children should have laws to protect them from abuse? Whether you believe a child has the mental and physical capacity to consent to marriage and sex? And is you do believe they are then what is then to stop also the same being applied to allow children to do many other things like working, drinking, driving, smoking etc at far lower legal age?

by Original Quill Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:32 pm

Didge wrote:You do not get to decide the parameters of the debate...

No the standard interpretation of languages does that.

Didge wrote:The only matter of concern here is whether you believe children should have laws to protect them from abuse? Whether you believe a child has the mental and physical capacity to consent to marriage and sex? And is you do believe they are then what is then to stop also the same being applied to allow children to do many other things like working, drinking, driving, smoking etc at far lower legal age?

What is, or is not abuse is a question of values. What I believe would be subjective, and is of no relevance to the discussion.

I can go on all day, my friend. You keep returning to the subjectivity of values, and violating the fact/value distinction. Belief has nothing to do with it. The values of one culture, indeed...of one person, are of no use when judging another culture.

You can go on all day judging 'the other', and indeed that is what cultures do when at war. But it has no factual basis. It's just foot-stamping.

Now go ahead, stamp you foot and scream again... Razz

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:38 pm

Here we go again, which shows you have no comprehension of psychology or of the know effects to children mentally and physically, when they are abused. Again you keep inventing what you state is the parameters which is really another poor deflection, where you fundamentally keep avoiding the main questions at the end, because you know if you answer you have to agree with me, or back children having sex and in the majority of the world which has progressed classified as child abuse.

I mean why not apply your views and standards on racism Quill, you would tie yourself up in knots

Or champion the right value to allow slavery?

Seriously, I can tie you up in knots in your own arguments, which will leave you being a hypocrite on countless other debates

Like I said your value is subjective, the mental effects to children has empirical evidence.

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/long-term-effects-child-sexual-abuse/impact-child-sexual-abuse-mental-health

Suck it up bucko

So your answer are pure gibberish based on subjective philosophy, where mine has empirical evidence, which is not a belief at all, of which if we used your own right values to many things you champion, you would by default contradict yourself every time you answered

Oh dear, did I just burst your bubble?

Which leaves your illogical points sinking faster than HMS Hood

You think you can go all day, you have no comprehension of my resolve to easily continue to show how flawed and lacking in understanding your view is that you think its not comical to make this funny about the plight of children

That just sums up the illogical philosophy of a regressive lefty
So again what matters here which you avoid at all costs is the following

The only matter of concern here is whether you believe children should have laws to protect them from abuse? Whether you believe a child has the mental and physical capacity to consent to marriage and sex? And is you do believe they are then what is then to stop also the same being applied to allow children to do many other things like working, drinking, driving, smoking etc at far lower legal age?

by Original Quill Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:01 pm

Didge wrote:Here we go again, which shows you have no comprehension of psychology or of the know effects to children mentally and physically, when they are abused. Again you keep inventing what you state is the parameters which is really another poor deflection, where you fundamentally keep avoiding the main questions at the end, because you know if you answer you have to agree with me, or back children having sex and in the majority of the world which has progressed classified as child abuse.

I mean why not apply your views and standards on racism Quill, you would tie yourself up in knots

Or champion the right value to allow slavery?

Seriously, I can tie you up in knots in your own arguments, which will leave you being a hypocrite on countless other debates

Like I said your value is subjective, the mental effects to children has empirical evidence.

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/long-term-effects-child-sexual-abuse/impact-child-sexual-abuse-mental-health

Suck it up bucko

So your answer are pure gibberish based on subjective philosophy, where mine has empirical evidence, which is not a belief at all, of which if we used your own right values to many things you champion, you would by default contradict yourself every time you answered

Oh dear, did I just burst your bubble?

Which leaves your illogical points sinking faster than HMS Hood

You think you can go all day, you have no comprehension of my resolve to easily continue to show how flawed and lacking in understanding your view is that you think its not comical to make this funny about the plight of children

That just sums up the illogical philosophy of a regressive lefty
So again what matters here which you avoid at all costs is the following

The only matter of concern here is whether you believe children should have laws to protect them from abuse? Whether you believe a child has the mental and physical capacity to consent to marriage and sex? And is you do believe they are then what is then to stop also the same being applied to allow children to do many other things like working, drinking, driving, smoking etc at far lower legal age?

I see you struggling to turn your position into an objective one, to no avail. As I read, I was thinking they must have said the same type things about the Native Americans..."the only good Indian is a dead Indian..." and so forth. It's unfortunate in this case, because now that we have gained a little distance we find a lot to like about the Native American culture. Too bad we couldn't have felt that before Little Big Horn and Pine Ridge. But we once took against the American Indian, the same view that you take against Muslims.

While looking through some findings of a search yesterday, I found the following in Wiki, of all places. It is fascinating...

Wiki wrote:Moralistic fallacy

The fact-value distinction is also closely related to the moralistic fallacy, an invalid inference of factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises. For example, an invalid inference "Because everybody ought to be equal, there are no innate genetic differences between people" is an instance of the moralistic fallacy. Some cases of experimental errors, for instance, the "discovery" of N-rays, and the placebo effect, in which the experimenters reported that a non-existing effect is taking place simply because they believed it ought to take place, fall into the category of moralistic fallacy. The phenomenon of the placebo effect shows how deeply are humans' brains committed to some forms of the moralistic fallacy.

Fascinating--as I say. Take a look...the entire entry is a great read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction Take a look at this:

Wiki wrote:Nietzsche's table of values

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra said that a table of values hangs above every great people. Nietzsche points out that what is common among different peoples is the act of esteeming, of creating values, even if the values are different from one people to the next. Nietzsche asserts that what made people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing. Thus the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to act on those values.[4] The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself, according to Nietzsche.[5] "A thousand goals have there been so far," says Zarathustra, "for there are a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal." Hence, the title of the aphorism, "On The Thousand And One Goals." The idea that one value-system is no more worthy than the next, although it may not be directly ascribed to Nietzsche, has become a common premise in modern social science. Max Weber and Martin Heidegger absor it and made it their own. It shaped their philosophical endeavor, as well as their political understanding.

"Humanity still has no goal..." It's actually poetic.

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:11 pm

I have not come to any conclusions?

Show where I have?

What I did rightly say is of the clear evidence of mental health problems to younger children, with sex

You see no matter how badly you wiggle Quill you are just not that smart as seen and even again make assertions that are untrue

Of course Nietzsche', was a dickless idiot at best, but he seems to be your prophet on everything, which is all irrelevant here

What is relevant is if you used your same reasoning to racism or slavery, you would end up looking a completely hypocritical nincompoop, but then that is where your desperation comes into this.

What matters and only does matter is whether we introduce laws to protect children which progressive people have done in the west because they are based on reason and not myths. Now unless you can tell me a person can do as they wish to another person without consequence, they you nullify the need to have any criminal laws

Which leads back to the same questions you failed to answer

So again what matters here which you avoid at all costs is the following

The only matter of concern here is whether you believe children should have laws to protect them from abuse? Whether you believe a child has the mental and physical capacity to consent to marriage and sex? And is you do believe they are then what is then to stop also the same being applied to allow children to do many other things like working, drinking, driving, smoking etc at far lower legal age?

by nicko Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:18 pm

Do you have any children Quill?

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:22 pm

nicko wrote:Do you have any children Quill?

He does Nicko

This is more about Quill not be able to back down when he knows he has a poor argument, he knew this ages ago, so how he has introduced philosophy in desperation to try and save face. It has not worked because it would make near every other debate he has had hypocritical.

He simply cannot answer whether it is reasonable to have laws to protect children

As I am sure hypothetically, he would tell you that if anyone had abused his daughter, he would not have hesitated in shooting them, given half the chance

by nicko Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:24 pm

Does he have any Daughters?

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:26 pm

nicko wrote:Does he have any Daughters?

Yes Nicko, studied at Harvard medical school, from what I understand he is very proud as any father is of their children

Like I say this is not about what is right and wrong anymore this debate for Quill, its about him attempting to come out on top, which on such a subject is quite sad really

by Original Quill Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:39 pm

Didge wrote:
nicko wrote:Do you have any children Quill?

He does Nicko

This is more about Quill not be able to back down when he knows he has a poor argument, he knew this ages ago, so how he has introduced philosophy in desperation to try and save face. It has not worked because it would make near every other debate he has had hypocritical.

He simply cannot answer whether it is reasonable to have laws to protect children

As I am sure hypothetically, he would tell you that if anyone had abused his daughter, he would not have hesitated in shooting them, given half the chance

"Back down"? My heavens, a war metaphor. But the cause is misplaced.

The reason I can't relinquish the point is that I am right. The measure of a person's stand is the terrain, not the dynamics. You must have felt this with your wife...every man does when she says, ...you never say you're wrong... Well??? Laughing

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

He does Nicko

This is more about Quill not be able to back down when he knows he has a poor argument, he knew this ages ago, so how he has introduced philosophy in desperation to try and save face. It has not worked because it would make near every other debate he has had hypocritical.

He simply cannot answer whether it is reasonable to have laws to protect children

As I am sure hypothetically, he would tell you that if anyone had abused his daughter, he would not have hesitated in shooting them, given half the chance

"Back down"? My heavens, a war metaphor. But the cause is misplaced.

The reason I can't relinquish the point is that I am right. The measure of a person's stand is the terrain, not the dynamics. You must have felt this with your wife...every man does when she says, ...you never say you're wrong... Well???

Maybe in 1930 Quill, which is where your mindset seems to be

Every poster here knows you are wrong on this and its the left regressive stubbornness having a RW poster far exceeding your ability to understand here which really gets your goat here more than anything else

Oh and a Brit to boot lol

Anyhow as I have easily rubbished your points and you have avoided so many without any comprehensive answer, I will continue to just laugh at you

by Original Quill Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:42 pm

nicko wrote:Does he have any Daughters?

Two. The eldest is a Harvard taught attorney, with an MBA degree as well from Harvard, and practices in Boston. The other is a physician and practices in Tucson.

Both beautiful, and with handsome, talented husbands. Razz

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Does he have any Daughters?

Two. The eldest is a Harvard taught attorney, with an MBA degree as well from Harvard, and practices in Boston. The other is a physician and practices in Tucson.

Both beautiful, and with handsome, talented husbands.

have you ever seen with the naked eye, the Planet Saturn Quill by any chance?

by Original Quill Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

"Back down"? My heavens, a war metaphor. But the cause is misplaced.

The reason I can't relinquish the point is that I am right. The measure of a person's stand is the terrain, not the dynamics. You must have felt this with your wife...every man does when she says, ...you never say you're wrong... Well???

Maybe in 1930 Quill, which is where your mindset seems to be

Every poster here knows you are wrong on this and its the left regressive stubbornness having a RW poster far exceeding your ability to understand here which really gets your goat here more than anything else

Oh and a Brit to boot lol

Anyhow as I have easily rubbished your points and you have avoided so many without any comprehensive answer, I will continue to just laugh at you

If I am wrong, than David Hume was wrong.

NEWS FLASH!!! Everyone gets nobel prizes...

Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics - Page 4 Nobel

Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics - Page 4 Nobel

by Original Quill Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:47 pm

Been fun...but gotta go. Appointments.

by Guest Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Maybe in 1930 Quill, which is where your mindset seems to be

Every poster here knows you are wrong on this and its the left regressive stubbornness having a RW poster far exceeding your ability to understand here which really gets your goat here more than anything else

Oh and a Brit to boot lol

Anyhow as I have easily rubbished your points and you have avoided so many without any comprehensive answer, I will continue to just laugh at you

If I am wrong, than David Hume was wrong.

NEWS FLASH!!! Everyone gets nobel prizes...

For the subjective view of what others think

Which defeats your own point again does it not

Others may well have given the prize to someone else

by Original Quill Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:27 pm

Didge wrote:For the subjective view of what others think

Which defeats your own point again does it not

Others may well have given the prize to someone else

--Donald Trump

by Guest Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Donald Duck

by @lex Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Maybe in 1930 Quill, which is where your mindset seems to be

Every poster here knows you are wrong on this and its the left regressive stubbornness having a RW poster far exceeding your ability to understand here which really gets your goat here more than anything else

Oh and a Brit to boot lol

Anyhow as I have easily rubbished your points and you have avoided so many without any comprehensive answer, I will continue to just laugh at you

If I am wrong, than David Hume was wrong.

NEWS FLASH!!! Everyone gets nobel prizes...

But according to your reasoning here, it's also wrong - ethnocentric - for people to take a stand against racism in South Africa, or FGM in various African countries. Is that really a sound position?

by Original Quill Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:12 am

@lex wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

If I am wrong, than David Hume was wrong.

NEWS FLASH!!! Everyone gets nobel prizes...

But according to your reasoning here, it's also wrong - ethnocentric - for people to take a stand against racism in South Africa, or FGM in various African countries. Is that really a sound position?

It depends on whether you are inside or outside the judgmental culture. You missed an important part of the discussion: there is no right or wrong:

Nietzsche wrote:“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:41 am

I see Quill contradicted himself again lol

by Original Quill Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Didge wrote:I see Quill contradicted himself again lol

Soz pal, if you just don't get it. Maybe another war will soothe your feelings. Laughing

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:I see Quill contradicted himself again lol

Soz pal, if you just don't get it. Maybe another war will soothe your feelings.

Interesting if a war, I would encircle your points and annihilate them peace meal, through superior tactics.

lol!

by Original Quill Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:40 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Soz pal, if you just don't get it. Maybe another war will soothe your feelings.

Interesting if a war, I would encircle your points and annihilate them peace meal, through superior tactics.

And declare yourself the winner, no doubt...

Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics - Page 4 Givepeaceachance-1

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:42 pm

I see sarcasm and the pun based on military tactics is lost on the yank again lol

Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"

listen (help·info)) is an anglicised term,^[a] describing a method of warfare, whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations with close air support, breaks through the opponent's line of defense by short, fast, powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them.^[1]^[2]^[3] Through the employment of combined arms in maneuver warfare, blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for it to respond to the continuously changing front and defeating it in a decisiveVernichtungsschlacht ("battle of annihilation")

by Original Quill Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:52 pm

Sarcasm and pun? Even you characterization of the fabled British humour is misplaced.

Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics - Page 4 E01802a9456ab8c5eafbbcecf9450368

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:56 pm

More like you lack a sense of humour lol

by @lex Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
@lex wrote:

But according to your reasoning here, it's also wrong - ethnocentric - for people to take a stand against racism in South Africa, or FGM in various African countries. Is that really a sound position?

It depends on whether you are inside or outside the judgmental culture. You missed an important part of the discussion: there is no right or wrong:

Nietzsche wrote:“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

... But doesn't this Nietzsche quotation contradict your stance that racism is objectively wrong?

by Original Quill Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:30 pm

@lex wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It depends on whether you are inside or outside the judgmental culture. You missed an important part of the discussion: there is no right or wrong:

... But doesn't this Nietzsche quotation contradict your stance that racism is objectively wrong?

No.

by Guest Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:33 pm

@lex wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It depends on whether you are inside or outside the judgmental culture. You missed an important part of the discussion: there is no right or wrong:

... But doesn't this Nietzsche quotation contradict your stance that racism is objectively wrong?

No but his right values aspect completely contradicts his views on racism and slavery

by Original Quill Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:27 am

Wiki wrote:Nietzsche's table of values

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra said that a table of values hangs above every great people. Nietzsche points out that what is common among different peoples is the act of esteeming, of creating values, even if the values are different from one people to the next. Nietzsche asserts that what made people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing. Thus the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to act on those values.[4] The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself, according to Nietzsche.[5] "A thousand goals have there been so far," says Zarathustra, "for there are a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal." Hence, the title of the aphorism, "On The Thousand And One Goals." The idea that one value-system is no more worthy than the next, although it may not be directly ascribed to Nietzsche, has become a common premise in modern social science. Max Weber and Martin Heidegger absor it and made it their own. It shaped their philosophical endeavor, as well as their political understanding.

When I finished my doctoral dissertation--the Theory of Atomism in Early Modern British Political Thought--I wondered why I pursued it. What was the bigger theory that motivated me?

In preSocratic philosophy, thinkers dealt with certain basic dualisms: one and many; change and constancy; relativism; and motion and stasis. https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/1-presocratics.htm I found that there were three irreconcilable dualisms, in three fields: time, motion and pure curve.

There is no reconciliation in time. Then cannot be now, nor now, then, no matter what. It is barred.

There is no reconciliation in motion. Change in position, or in rate of change, can never happen, save a leap in logic.

There is no reconciliation between a straight linear direction and a curved linear direction, because that requires a change in motion.

Now, of course, these dualisms have to do with the metaphors we use to understand our universe. They are built upon a two-dimensional representation of the world. Nevertheless, they stay with us in the form of pattern recognition.

As Nietzsche says, there is no morality, yet man feels the need to reconcile morality. Ethnocentrism is one side of this dilemma. It commits you to one side of a moral relativism. It is the constancy as cultures change.

Thomas Hobbes dealt with this by holding that there is but one value: life--the one thing that can lead a man to break the civil contract is when his life is threatened. Even in the Declaration of Independence we see a slightly expanded version of this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...among these inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This thinking is carried out in the philosophy of the United Nations, as applied to nation states. You can't violate the life or freedom of a nation.

Apparently, the solution is to ground the loose end of the dualism, thereby reconciling the irreconcilable. But we only do this with certain fundamental values. Life and liberty are two such values, hence the proscription on genocide and slavery.

But the loose ends don't stay tied down. They turn around and bite you in the back. A good example was Vietnam: the north invades the south, and this is an example of a violation of the right to a nation's life. (In this example you see how effective casting is.) But in trying to enforce those rights, we end up killing as many babies as we save...which is precisely what some are proposing we do in the Middle East.

So the dualism will come back to bite you. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche tries to portray a truth--there is no good or evil--but no society can escape chasing them. I guess the moral of the story is to keep them to a minimum: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Don't try to apply your culture's standards to another culture. Don't be saving their lives and liberty, but be messing with their pursuit of happiness part.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:37 am

We have a thing called reasoning to where what is in effect a protection to every person in the nature of laws to bring fairness through beliefs like Equality
They are not formed from myths but a reality on how people can and do treat each other and why philosophy has no place in governing how we protect those abused around the world.
Philosophy does not take reality into the equation or how humans have advanced to a position where we can look to protect each other from harm and where harm can be given, then it stands to reason to protect against harm. Unless you believe people should be able to harm you, then philosophy has no place in the protection of people. We have as humans the capacity to make to ensure life is precious and the biggest failing in philosophy is failing to understand evolution itself and the ability of a species to exist and survive. In order to survive a species requires to protect itself and thus protection is something natural that comes to all of us. Where a child is not given protection we fail in what we naturally achieve daily as parents ourselves, to protect those from harm
Forcing a child into things they are not of a mental age of which science through evidence shows that mentally we are not truly adult until 25, shows further the failings of philosophy itself

Rights and wrongs?
If you think there is no rights or wrongs, then no creature would ever survive or strive to live, because how can it be wrong to survive, your very existence would be nullified or need to eat and drink would have no meaning.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:54 am

'Philosophy is evil' is an old fable...Remember the tree of life?

Philosophy is no occult religion; it is simply reasoning and, frankly, thinking. In effect, you are saying: Stay away from reasoning. That was the message of god when he warned Adam and Eve away from the apple. Stay away from figuring yourselves out.

Don't think. Just do as I say. I'm struck by how close that message is to the twisted dictatorships of the last century. All pigs are equal, just some pigs are more equal.

American exceptionalism was the twisted thinking of the Neo-Cons of the GWB era. It said that American values are exceptional, and that very fact gives America the right to go in and force changes in the ideologies and religions of "lessor" peoples (ie, less exceptional). The Iraq War was waged for that purpose. In a less self-aware way, so was Korea, Vietnam and a million skirmishes along the way in the Cold War. In the end, it's just ethnocentrism.

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:59 am

As seen the reason often is flawed and as seen we like any species seek to survive, so to say its wrong to survive would nullify your own existence, which would go against how evolution adapts everything in order to survive
At the end of the day its subjective where many disagree, what is important is the protection of life from harm to me Quill.
Philosophy can become a cult or religion if a stance and views are taken as a following by a set amount of people.
I like philosophy, but to me it is forever changing as humans are for ever changing and advancing..
The Iraq war was waged through nothing more than the whims of a very poor President, not any exceptionalism. He was simply inept and irresponsible whilst in power

by Guest Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:59 am

Right catch you all later

by Sponsored content