Subject:
|
Re: "France is not a Western Country anymore"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:53:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
850 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
<snipped the adultery bit>
> > > In general, I don't have to sell my house multiple times to know what the
> > > value is, I can use comps and appraisals if I really need to know a value at
> > > a particular time.
> >
> > Yes, because a house is a good for which there is a market. But how much are
> > you worth, dead?
>
> Wrongful death suits, as prosecuted in today's current system in the US (and
> I believe in Oz too) deal with this question all the time.
Determined by a judicial process... so once again, you need a judiciary...
and because your theoretical system is dynamic, values for transgressions
need to be determined each and every time, so it's going to be a big
judiciary....
And what about that criminal penalty concept you mentioned?
> Do you disagree that they manage to answer this question, somehow? (not
> whether they always get the right answer)
Not that they manage to answer the question. But I think the catch is 'ever'
rather than 'always' - after all, they arrive at a dollar value.
>
> > > But we digress... Do you agree or disagree with the assertion that sharia is
> > > not a particularly just system and further, that it may be symptomatic of a
> > > fundamental problem with islam being considered a religion of 'peace'? I
> > > didn't get a clear answer there yet I don't think....
> >
> > I think it is no more just than the system which declares all rights are
> > property rights.
>
> You haven't given a cogent argument why such a system is unjust. But even
> so, you're using property rights based systems as a red herring, because the
> system I prefer is not the system that Australia or the US currently uses.
Yes. I realise your proposed system is imaginary.
I was not comparing the Sharia to the Australian or US justice system,
merely to the property rights-based system which you have so earnestly
advocated.
>
> Be specific.
>
> Is Sharia more or less just than the current system of law in effect in
> Australia, in your view?
I didn't claim that it was or not, merely that it was no less arbitrary than
your imaginary property rights based system.
Having said that though, the current system in Australia is, I suspect more
just than the Sharia. But then I am not a follower of Islam, and have never
directly experienced that system. However, I do know that it seems no more
arbitrary that a system of justice which depends on the unproveable concept
of all rights being property rights.
> Is a religion that requires all residents of a country to adhere to its
> system more or less tolerant than one that does not?
Is a system which is not tolerant less tolerant than one that is tolerant?
Of course, but that's a pointless question. The original question you raised
was if Islam was a religion of 'peace'. What makes you think tolerance and
peace are the same?
> These are both clear questions.
Maybe, but they are not relevent to the original point, and just because a
question is clear, doesn't mean there is a clear answer.
> Please answer them without prevarication, if
> you can, or admit that you cannot. If you cannot answer these questions
> without prevarication, you're wasting my time.
Right.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "France is not a Western Country anymore"
|
| (...) I think breaching a contract is wrong. That's a general principle. My contract prohibits it. Why? I personally don't think that it would be a good idea for me personally to be an adulterer. So it would be wrong for me. But I am not so (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
