Devil's advocate..

[DramaQueen]

I'm going to come out right now, I can't wait to be executed (preferably stoned)

[genkaus]

Ok, show me the light here if you will....

We have the human rights legislation, and we apply it liberally.

But say we were the Islamic state and we sanctioned a human rights act (admittedly much different), but islam as a political solution does also promote peace and loyalty. So where and how is the western version more... right?

Peace based on oppression and loyalty to that oppressive system - that is where the western system is "more" right.

The "rightness" of a tool is determined by how well it serves its intended purpose - so the viability of Islam as a political system would rely on that as well. The purpose of a political system is to provide the framework for security, development and well-being of the society and individuals within it. The system that does better is more right.

---

Ok, let's stop right there !

Quoting atrocities as proof is not a proof.. There are billions of muslims that don't want heinous crimes committing in their name.

It is if those atrocities are sanctioned by the political system itself.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ok, let's stop right there !

Quoting atrocities as proof is not a proof.. There are billions of muslims that don't want heinous crimes committing in their name.

I'm on your side guys, I'm an atheist and want so much for the world to wake up to the facts and be peaceful.
But my point is more the mundane, if muslims want to make law that chops hands off for theft, are they wrong? we have the death penalty.. I suppose I'm looking for qualifiers.. why are we right and them wrong?

It depends on what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong'. If by right you mean an intolerant, racist, xenophobic, patriarchal, oppressive, tyrannical, theocratic Orwellian 'state' that murders everyone and everything that even looks like it might be even slightly opposed to its very narrow and exclusive mission and which would also set back human progress economically and socially several centuries, then IS is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you don't want any of that, it's probably not for you.

[Tonus]

Oh come on, it's more than a religion, and there are many peaceful surahs

And Dennis Rader may have been a terrific family man and generous charitable donator... when he wasn't murdering people in cold blood and taunting law enforcement over their inability to capture him.

[lifesagift]

Ok, let's stop right there !

Quoting atrocities as proof is not a proof.. There are billions of muslims that don't want heinous crimes committing in their name.

I'm on your side guys, I'm an atheist and want so much for the world to wake up to the facts and be peaceful.
But my point is more the mundane, if muslims want to make law that chops hands off for theft, are they wrong? we have the death penalty.. I suppose I'm looking for qualifiers.. why are we right and them wrong?

It depends on what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong'. If by right you mean an intolerant, racist, xenophobic, patriarchal, oppressive, tyrannical, theocratic Orwellian 'state' that murders everyone and everything that even looks like it might be even slightly opposed to its very narrow and exclusive mission and which would also set back human progress economically and socially several centuries, then IS is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you don't want any of that, it's probably not for you.

You're guessing my opinion, just give me your opinion.
In a democracy, there's a group of people that have more kids than another group... so they win.... doesn't matter whether they chop hands off or stone women to death does it?

[Angrboda]

I don't know what if anything makes one more right than the other. Both embody deep sets of values and since values are somewhat arbitrary there appears to be no clear way to decide.

It's a puzzle I have yet to solve. I admit to wanting to give the knee-jerk reaction that the western solution is more right, but that's largely because I share it's values.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It depends on what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong'. If by right you mean an intolerant, racist, xenophobic, patriarchal, oppressive, tyrannical, theocratic Orwellian 'state' that murders everyone and everything that even looks like it might be even slightly opposed to its very narrow and exclusive mission and which would also set back human progress economically and socially several centuries, then IS is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you don't want any of that, it's probably not for you.

You're guessing my opinion, just give me your opinion.
In a democracy, there's a group of people that have more kids than another group... so they win.... doesn't matter whether they chop hands off or stone women to death does it?

There is no right answer. In your hypothetical above, ceteris parabis, yes, they win. But rarely are things as such.

But FWIW, in a society akin to the one developed and run by organisations/peoples like IS, you have a majority of people wanting to escape tooth and nail from the society to which they have been subsumed. They are de facto slave a even if they can't state it out loud.

In my society I can announce that I'm a slave and criticise the powers that be without fear of, for example, getting my hand chopped off in the process.

[genkaus]

I don't know what if anything makes one more right than the other. Both embody deep sets of values and since values are somewhat arbitrary there appears to be no clear way to decide.

It's a puzzle I have yet to solve.

Let me give it a shot.

1. You assume that value system A is as deeply ingrained and arbitrary as value system B.
2. Therefore, there is no way to determine which is more right.
3. Without such a determination, it'd be wrong to impose one system over another.

In argument no.3 you have given a condition for determining which is more "right" - the condition being, without a clear determination of which is more right, the right thing to do is not to impose one over other.

Applying this at individual level, we can conclude that it'd be wrong to impose an arbitrary value system upon an individual. So, a political system that ensures that such an imposition won't occur would be more right. So, while the two systems maybe regarded as arbitrary at an individual level (they may not be, but that is a different discussion), at a political level, one comes out as a clear winner.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ok, show me the light here if you will....

We have the human rights legislation, and we apply it liberally.

But say we were the Islamic state and we sanctioned a human rights act (admittedly much different), but islam as a political solution does also promote peace and loyalty. So where and how is the western version more... right?

Islam is not a political "solution" to any political rights issues, because in governance, it has historically marginalized non-Muslims, leading to tiered and thereby unstable societies.

As for promoting peace and loyalty, that's highly debatable.

[lifesagift]

Ok, show me the light here if you will....

We have the human rights legislation, and we apply it liberally.

But say we were the Islamic state and we sanctioned a human rights act (admittedly much different), but islam as a political solution does also promote peace and loyalty. So where and how is the western version more... right?

Islam is not a political "solution" to any political rights issues, because in governance, it has historically marginalized non-Muslims, leading to tiered and thereby unstable societies.

As for promoting peace and loyalty, that's highly debatable.

Sorry, by "solution", I didn't mean it was the answer. What I meant is that in islam they use the shariah as a political, financial and judicial framework, as well as religious.