DrZoidberg
Contributor
I'll use the same example. You can't rape somebody just because someone else also raped somebody. That's not how moral justification works. All racism is bad.
-
Features
Europe submits voluntarily
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
- Status
I'll use the same example. You can't rape somebody just because someone else also raped somebody. That's not how moral justification works. All racism is bad.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
BTW, you don't seem to understand Dhimmi. Muslims are required to pay Zakat. Non-Muslims aren't. So Dhimmi-tax (aka Jizya) is an attempt to make it fair. The fact that you think paying Dhimmi is unfair, shows that you don't understand the words you are using.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
In a Muslim country there's a whole bunch of duties that Muslims have to do, that non-Muslims are exempt from. When Islam first spread around the Middle-East Muslims were in the minority, in all countries they ruled. How long do you think Muslim rule would have lasted if they mistreated their non-Muslim subjects? BTW, this wasn't Mohammed's idea. The idea to treat your subjects fairly was an idea that the Persian ruler, Cyrus the great, started with. It's just common sense. You have to be a fair ruler, or you are fucked. Something that the late British empire forgot... and was probably the main reason it went tits up.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
I'd think two costly and destructive wars probably had more to do with the collapse of the European empire.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
The moment the colonialists saw the colonies as free money, they were fucked. Which was ca 1870. After that is was just a matter of time. Once the liberation movements got rolling, there was nothing to stop them.
At the beginning of the British empire in India they treated the natives with respect. Ambassadors would dress like Indians and go out of their way to learn customs. The Brits didn't start out racist. Quite the contrary. After Darwin's book came in 1848, social darwinism became all the rage, and especially white supremacy. After that they didn't give a rats ass about fairness or treating any Indians or Africans with respect. It was all about enriching Brits at the expense of the browns. That didn't even work in the short term. Instant fail. The result was that England stopped making a profit from their colonies. While England was focused on free trade, and non-exploitation, it made England rich. But as soon they started just sucking out blood from their colonies, England stopped making a profit from their colonies. In 1960 England was losing money to the colonies... just because bleeding them dry had destroyed the infrastructure. Both social and physical. This was a trend started decades before the world wars.
What the two world wars did was to make England bankrupt. So they couldn't afford to pay for the colonies. But if they'd just managed their colonial holdings responsibly all along, the colonies would have been an economic boon, to both themselves and England. So it would have been in their interest to keep the colonies.
It wasn't even greed. It was just idiocy. It was the idea that economic rules suddenly didn't apply any longer and the Brits were so rich and powerful they didn't need to care about anyone. What a surprise that went to shit.
There's loads more details to this story. But there was a lot wrong with the British mindset, that brought down the colonies. A huge problem was that it was low status to work. Gentlemen didn't have jobs. They went to clubs and smoked cigarr's and drank whiskey. They looked down their noses to American millionaires who continued to build company empires even when already rich. The result is that the most capable entrepreneurs continually took themselves out of the jobs market = a dumb cultural strategy. While the American economy rapidly overtook the British economy. There was a culture of making it rich in the colonies and then coming home to England to live off your wealth. Bad for England. Bad for the colonies. The British army was idiotically organised. There was little incentive to do a good job, or effectivise anything. So they didn't. It just became a massive drain on the economy.
It was just so much wrong with the British empire. And it was one of the better ones. France and Holland were even worse. The only colonialist that held out for any length of time was Portugal. Why? Because they were fascist. They had no free press and were totalitarian. But the moment the fascist dictatorship fell, the colonies broke free. After Belgium the worst colonial power by far.
I've read quite a number of books on British colonialism. There's a lot of things to say. it's a complex topic.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Any recommendations? PDFs are appreciated
Separate but equal is almost never actually equal.
And even if it was "equal" there's the problem that Zakat pays for Islamic things--stuff the Dhimmi gets basically no benefit from and thus shouldn't have to pay for.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Segregation is the act of segmenting society along racial or ethnic lines. Unfair taxation that benefits the ruling class at the expense of their subjects is just par for the course in terms of human history. Really the Jizya was more of a financial incentive to make people convert and not something designed to divide society.
I can understand misgivings surrounding Islam but really this is just you fishing at this point.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Zakat pays for social welfare. It's a rudimentary welfare system. That's all it is. It's true that it's paid for and to Muslims. But it's still a transference system. So while non-Muslims don't get access to social welfare, while in effect paying for it, they still avoided a lot of extra work. Non-Muslims weren't pressed into military service for instance. That was only Muslims. Whenever public works went up, like aqueducts, forts, mosques, universities, and so on, only Muslims were required to sacrifice time to help build it, ie Jihad. Demanding that a non-Muslim participate in a Jihad is haram. So they didn't have to.
The Ottoman Empire, expanded Mohammeds model, and made a complicated system. In Constantinople/Istanbul the court only used Jewish doctors. The army was Muslim. But the most elite troops, the Jannisaries, were 100% christian. A lot of the top administrators were Christian. They went out of their way to try to make it as fair as possible, and balance different religious groups against each other, to avoid making any religious group too powerful. Violence still broke out now and again. But they were ruthless in supressing it. The Ottoman Caliphs had no patience for fundamentalist Muslims. They were constantly weeded out.
But as more and more Christians and Pagans converted to Islam, increasing numbers of poor people became Muslim. Even though they were supposed to pay Zakat, so around 900 AD most of them probably didn't. At that point dhimmi tax might have felt like extortionate taxes. Islam has never had any kind of central authority keeping track of who has paid Zakat. It's up to each and every Muslim and their conscience. But the origin with dhimmi tax wasn't that non-Muslims should pay more
In other words, you're conceding that it's unfair.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
True, but then there is no shortage of injustice no matter where you live, so what's your point? That unfairness is enshrined in Islam? So what? it's enshrined in our political and legal institutions.
Also for me to concede would require that I argued it wasn't unfair initially, no? Otherwise its not a concession, its agreement.
Last edited:
angelo
Deleted
If all racism is bad, then why aren't the followers of the death cult exposed for what they are! Racists of the worst kind! Their " prophet " taught to kill all who are opposed and refuse to submit to islam.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
How the hell has this comment anything to do with the moral merits of the Allies during WW2? You brought up Islam to deflect attention away from that you fucked up. I pointed it out. And you continue deflecting as if I didn't. I pulled down the pants on your attempt. How about just admitting that you were wrong?
angelo
Deleted
Moral merits of the Allies? Are you for real? Whatever they were, they were 1000 times better than the enemies, for both the Facists and Japan had no morals. So Churchill may have pointed out the fact that Western Democracies superiority built on science and to a certain degree, on xtianity does not make him a racist.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Do you think Angelo has Alzheimers?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
It doesn't matter how evil the Axis were. It doesn't make the Allies good guys. Again... if someone else rapes a woman and then murders her, how would that make it morally justified, because you just rape a woman without murdering her? That's the essence of your moral argument.
BTW, the Japanese had loads of morals. In their moral code you never surrendered. So anybody that surrenders to a Japanese soldier has lost their humanity and right to live. Just because you don't approve of somebodies morals, doesn't mean they don't have them. Fascist morals were that the aims justifies the means. We might not approve of those morals. But they still had them.
No, that doesn't make Churchill a racist. His racism makes him a racist. Are you denying that Churchill was a racist and white supremacist?
I'd also argue that western democracies and scientific traditions aren't inherently western. The term "Enlightenment" is a clue. It's borrowed from Buddhism. In the 18'th century the public's hunger for new books to read was outstripping the pace at which authors wrote them. Eastern works started to be translated into western languages to meet the need. This movement led to the Enlightenment. Schopenhaur is the first western philosopher open about basing his ideas on eastern philosophy. It's probably even earlier, but from then on there's no doubt that western philosophy, politics and science is not a western thing. It's a global thing. The thoughts produced are universal and all literary cultures share in producing it. Why did collecting all this happen in Europe specifically. The answer is, because of guns, germs and steel. It was an accident of history.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
He was detained as a foreign habitual criminal and as determined by common sense has no right of abode in the UK. He committed 30 convictions between 1998 and 2013, for which he served 13 custodial sentences per:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/48859...wins-80k-payout-for-being-in-prison-too-long/
Post traumatic stress disorder says the EU Justice system.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,824
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
'Common sense', no matter how you define it, does not overrule English Law, which is founded in the Magna Carta.
Lots of people have, for centuries, bemoaned the fact that the law treats criminals as though they were human beings with certain rights, even while recognizing that their other rights are to be suspended; A convict in jail has no right to freedom, but that does not mean that the government can do with him as it pleases, or as the population demands.
Civilization is, in a very real way, the act of allowing rule of law to override 'common sense'; And the basic justification for this is that 'common sense' is like 'God's will', in that it tends to mean 'Whatever the person speaking wants, and fuck everyone else'.
The law sets a priori limits on what can and cannot be done to people who offend against it. To claim after the fact that a more severe punishment should be applied because 'common sense' demands it, is to undermine the very existence of law.
Fuck the neo-fascist scumbags at The Sun, and fuck anyone else who appeals for civilization to be suspended while we commit acts of barbary against a particular offender who has attracted their ire.
Civilization is there to defend everybody - including, but certainly not limited to, criminals. If you don't like it, go and live in Somalia.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
English Law is a judge based law system in addition to statute preceding the Magna Carta. It still forms a part of our civil liberties but I can't see how it is designed to empower violent foreign criminals.
Clean Hands Doctrine where Wiki is sufficient to explain it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands
Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".[3]
The clean hands doctrine is used in U.S. patent law to deny equitable or legal relief to a patentee that has engaged in improper conduct, such as using the patent to extend monopoly power beyond the claims of the patent.[4]
A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.
The criminal has dirty hands.
angelo
Deleted
It seems that foreign criminals and jihadis are protected by the left and political correct doo gooders!
If some laws facilitate this behavior, then some of these laws should be toughened up. The electorate demands it.
If some laws facilitate this behavior, then some of these laws should be toughened up. The electorate demands it.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,824
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?
It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,
The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.
It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,
The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.
- Status