A Real Modern Day Witch Hunt, Conviction and Death Sentance

[Kestrel]

And how does all this relate to a dictatorship that maintains power by force?

The Saudi regime also uses social engineering and religion to maintain power. The state funds religious schools outside the country and enforces religious law. This assure the loyalty of the conservative religious leaders. The religious leaders support the state to assure that the religion and religious leadership never changes. It's a lot like the deal that the Christian churches and Kings of Europe had for centuries.

 

[RandFan]

And how does all this relate to a dictatorship that maintains power by force?

The Saudi regime also uses social engineering and religion to maintain power.

Thanks Kestrel.

The post was about judging morality of various societies. It's my opinion that we can and should judge what we think are immoral acts of individuals, organizations or states. BTW: This is, in part, the purpose of the UN.

When America violates human rights they should be criticized and the whole world should discuss the abuses and call for America to change it's ways.

Saudi Arabia isn't exempt just because it is a dictatorship.

I'll stand by my post. If you don't think it applies then that's fine.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Surely if he could see the future he'd surely have stayed the hell away from Saudi Arabia?

 

[Darat]

I honestly don't understand your question.

If we look at dictatorships in the world we see that they do not recognise human rights, and so on. What you see as "backwardness" I see as the result of a ruthless, hereditary dictatorship maintaining their grip, the fact that they use some aspects of religion to maintain that grip is par for the course.

 

[Darat]

The Saudi regime also uses social engineering and religion to maintain power. The state funds religious schools outside the country and enforces religious law. This assure the loyalty of the conservative religious leaders. The religious leaders support the state to assure that the religion and religious leadership never changes. It's a lot like the deal that the Christian churches and Kings of Europe had for centuries.

Absolutely agree.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

i think a certain arthur miller play comes to mind

 

[Darat]

Thanks Kestrel.

The post was about judging morality of various societies. It's my opinion that we can and should judge what we think are immoral acts of individuals, organizations or states. BTW: This is, in part, the purpose of the UN.

When America violates human rights they should be criticized and the whole world should discuss the abuses and call for America to change it's ways.

Saudi Arabia isn't exempt just because it is a dictatorship.

I'll stand by my post. If you don't think it applies then that's fine.

Of course it isn't exempt from criticism because it is a dictatorship but you said, for example, "However I think most people did want increased well being and decreased suffering. If so then we have, demonstrably, some very good solutions (modern liberal democracy, fundamental rights, due process).".

That applies to the people that make up the society but in a dictatorship it is not the society that has the power to enact changes (of course they can by revolution but that's a different proposition). The "blame" for a the society that exists under a dictatorship belongs to the dictator.

 

[RandFan]

That applies to the people that make up the society but in a dictatorship it is not the society that has the power to enact changes (of course they can by revolution but that's a different proposition). The "blame" for a the society that exists under a dictatorship belongs to the dictator.

I don't accept that. Well, the dictator is to blame but not solely. Not exclusively. It wasn't that long ago that the majority of all modern societies were ruled by dictators. If the people had no power to enact change then where did modern liberal democracies come from? How would you characterize the French revolution?

 

[Darat]

I don't accept that. Well, the dictator is to blame but not solely. Not exclusively. It wasn't that long ago that the majority of all modern societies were ruled by dictators. If the people had no power to enact change then where did modern liberal democracies come from? How would you characterize the French revolution?

As a revolution of course. Which is why I said "(of course they can by revolution but that's a different proposition)".

 

[RandFan]

As a revolution of course. Which is why I said "(of course they can by revolution but that's a different proposition)".

Yeah, I did miss that.

I don't think stating that "it's a different proposition" tells us anything. It doesn't change anything I've said. I concede that there are variables that make it difficult for social and cultural advancement. That doesn't obviate the fact that it is the 21st century and killing people because it's believed that they are witches is anachronistic. There isn't likely going to be change until the people change.

It's a bit convenient to say, well, we have a dictator so we don't need no stinkin modern morals.

 

[Belgian thought]

Surely if he could see the future he'd surely have stayed the hell away from Saudi Arabia?

That should be his defence i.e. - if I were a witch, and have the power to foresee the future, then I would not have made predictions in Saudi Arabia, since I would have known the outcome.

Still, poor sod.

We in the UK have kowtowed to this regime for far too long, but cannot use sanctions against them, since their products are too precious to us.

A country with such wealth (going to the few) and a literacy rate of 78% - (with only 6.7% employed in agriculture) in my view cannot be called civilized.

 

[Eyeron]

There is no such thing as a civilized country where when allegations of heinous crimes means you're guilty no matter what and you must be punished.

 

[jmcvann]

It wasn't meant as such but it's a fair point to bring up.

It depends on your premises. If increased well being and decreased suffering is a good thing then one can in fact find superior cultural aspects. Now, if you don't agree with those then that's fine.


IMO: Values that increase well being and decrease suffering are the "right" values. This is simply an opinion but I think that in the long run most people would come to agree with those premises if they don't already. The problem then becomes how to best achieve increased well being and decreased suffering?

In times past human societies did not know what we know now. They did their best to survive and provide security and well being for some degree of their citizens (the upper class). I'd gladly judge those societies by the level of their understanding (the light of their times). However I think most people did want increased well being and decreased suffering. If so then we have, demonstrably, some very good solutions (modern liberal democracy, fundamental rights, due process).


Uh....

• It's after the enlightenment.
• Available knowledge has advanced considerably.
• Empiricism and the scientific method are known throughout the world.
• Saudi Arabia is just as capable of figuring out that there is NO SUCH THING AS A WITCH (sorry).
• Saudi Arabia has access to sources of modern liberal philosophy.
• Saudi Arabia has access to the data that would demonstrate to them that freedom, democracy and due process are correlated with higher quality of life.

I honestly believe that there is is much, MUCH goodness, art, history and beauty in Arab Culture. I just think they need to jettison some of their iron age traditions (like killing witches since there is no evidence whatsoever that witches exist).

Thank you.

May I just say, sir, that I love almost every one of your posts? Please hang around...

 

[RandFan]

May I just say, sir, that I love almost every one of your posts? Please hang around...

Thanks. 30,000+ posts and something like 8 years. I'm here to stay.

 

[GlennB]

Yeah, see, that's the very definition of Tu Quoque.

Ah - our understandings of 'tu quoque' and 'motes and beams' differ then.

From your Wiki link :

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

I clearly wasn't dismissing the Saudi witchhunting by quoting western barbarism. Nor the reverse. I was pointing out that the 21st century hasn't made our own barbarism a thing of the past. Pointing out the hypocrisy in the o/p, in other words. Perhaps, in your anger, you missed the point.

 

[fuelair]

No offense, but this kinda seems to me like a form of cultural bigotry. I mean, just because Society A holds certain values at a certain point in human history, it doesn't necessarily follow that:

• Those are the "right" values;
• There are "correct" values for each given historical period;
• That all societies should evolve their value systems at the same rate and towards the same intermediate state or end state.

What, exactly, does the 21st Century have to do with Saudi belief and value systems? Should their society have evolved some other way, or at some other rate?

Why, yes, yes it should have!!

 

[RandFan]

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

Yeah, that's what you did. You don't have to actually state that you dismiss the behavior you just have to create a red herring.

I've conceded the errors of America. That's more than most would do. If you want to discuss more about America's crime start a thread. Otherwise you are engaged in argument Tu quoque, ad hominem.

it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

See, you are not addressing the OP. You are attacking something else. That's the point. And BTW, you are off topic. Whether what you say is true or not doesn't address the OP. It shifts focus.

If you want to argue hypocrisy then start another thread. Take it some place else.

 

[RandFan]

I clearly wasn't dismissing the Saudi witchhunting by quoting western barbarism.

Susie: Mommy bobby hit me.
Bobby: Suzie hit me too.

It's childish. I've not claimed that America doesn't commit crimes or atrocity.

So NO hypocrisy.

It's a lesson you should have learned in elementary school. Take it somewhere else.

 

[shandyjan]

Sometimes you can just feel overwhelmed with all the wrongs in the world.
We got criticiised for helping a dog charity who rescue oldies.(There are children suffering, etc etc....) My partner said, each to his chosen outlet, but if everyone tried to help a few causes the world would be a better place.
Two wrongs don't make a right, so you cant null a topic by comparing it to something someone else has done. You can get involved, or not, but it needs telling. Those that campaign need their stories telling.
We cannot take back what we did in the war, or what we did in the middle ages. We can only raise our voices at what we see happening now!

 

[linusrichard]

So, the new rule: Before you make a post about something bad, check to find out it if it's the worst thing in the world. If it is, go ahead and post. Otherwise, don't. That should make these forums really exciting and educational.

/sarcasm