Printable View
Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
From What I can gather.
1. Wilders is a mixed race man who has roots in Indonesia
2. He doesn't like rampant immagration or the insulation of minorty groups in Holland
Thats where I get confused.
The anti immagrant party is made up of mixed race people, ok and?
STFS, his party has only one member: Geert Wilders himself (who has a mother of mixed race). Its constituency, however, is overwhelmingly ethnically Dutch.
In that case I'll agree with Louis.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.Quote:
Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.
You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Does Wilders want to ban the Koran because he wants to ban things he doesn't like, or does he want to ban it because Holland bans books that he thinks are as bad as the Koran and he feels the ban should be applied equally, even though he also believes that in an ideal world there shouldn't be a ban at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Just wondering, perhaps Frag could explain.
Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.
He compared it to mein kampf as a book that preaches hate, and he said if muslims would tear out the hateful passages out of the Quran what would remain wouldn't be thicker then the Donald Duckhehemyboy
Mein Kampf actually isn't banned, just about every library has it, there is just nobody who wants to sell it.
Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
And there we have it, yet another scientific rapport from a knowologue, Wilders is not extreme right, but new-right radical. wut? Release of the rapport has nothing to do with the trial of course, but once again they turn out to be to stupid and made a mistake, if you are going to release a months old rapport at the right time and claim it wasn't done yet (minister of internal affairs who ordered the rapport said so and proudly presented it yesterday IT IS DONE), at least change the dates on the adobe-documents.
Pointless, as I am talking about a moral absolute, and you are talking about the perception of morality. The concept of authentic morality excludes relativism, as does the concept of genuine truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
But, I feel I should say something about Wilders. His closest cognate in Britain is probably the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Roschester. Nazir-Ali is a Pakistani immigrant to the UK from a mixed Christina/Muslim family and, to be frank, his distane for Islam borders on the openly hostile.
What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.
The other thing these men have in common is a high level of intergration into their host culture, something they both clearly think other immigrants should have as well.
:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If he would identify with anything other then the Netherlands it would be Israel, he lived there for years, also find that a lot more likely candidate as a reason why he isn't absolutely in love with the Islam. That, and unlike his enemies who live in 100% white neighbourhoods and put their children on 100% white schools he also lived for years in a neighborhood that was enriched with culture, he knows of the problems first hand.
So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.Quote:
You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.
PS. I dislike Plato, though.
Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Clearly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
...because Socrates was not a Sophist. Fragony is quite correct, Protagoras said that the better argument is the most "moral" even if the position being argued was the weaker one. Sophistry is merely rhetorical. It has no genuinely moral dimension.
Socrates' thought is only transferred through Plato and (to a much lesser extent) Xenophon. All we can be reasonably confident he said is that "the only wisdom is to know that you know nothing". Socrates was a diadactition and a sceptic, not a sophist or a relativist.
Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.
Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative. Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.
However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.
There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.
More interpunction, please.Quote:
Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.
This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.
However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?
As far as it should never be banned, yes. Just like the holy book of 3 nutjobs, aka Mein Kampf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
The thing is, Wilders never said the same thing about the Bible. And there are quite a few hate-filled passages in there, too...
To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, he doesn't. As I pointed out to Louis at length, there is very little reason to believe Wilders is strongly informed by a colonial background in his actions. By a Dutch nationalist background, yes, though, so I agree with the rest of that paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
EDIT: And friend, he is not "integrated", as he was raised by a Dutch family in an overwhelmingly Dutch rural area. He is an ethnic Dutchman and is perceived as such by all Dutchmen. This is what informs him, regardless of whatever Louis and his anthropologist claim. Wilders is in no way comparable to a first-generation immigrant from a third world country.
Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Also isn't like teachers avoid the subject of the holocaust or the rascals go nuts :juggle2:
So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.
spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.Quote:
Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero
Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You are right the Middle East my badQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...
Really, how come
'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:
You should, he was a great thinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
No, it is about the ostensible teaching of wisdom. Relativism is abohorrant to moralism anyway, which is the point.Quote:
Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative.
This is impossible to know, as not a single Socratic work survives; only Platonic ones.Quote:
Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.
Morality is like truth, an absolute, whether or not they really exist is a seperate question from their nature. If you ascibe to a relativistic world view then you can only talk about individual perceptions of morality, not morality itself.Quote:
However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.
Morality is morality, criticism of someone's perception of morality is different. A badly argued moral good is still a moral good.Quote:
There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.
The first question to ask is whether what Wilders says has any truth in it, then where he intends to take his conclusions. The structure of his argument is a semantic question, not a relevant one. The use of rhetoric to refute his points is a question of technical proficiency, not morality.Quote:
This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.
However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?
whyQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?
What do you mean, can't just decide that, he does nothing other then debating, in the parliament where it belongs, he won't go to Paul & Witteman no.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments < there is your debate, they don't want it so they do this. Little adition, if Wilders wouldn't debate there wouldn't be any debate because of the suffocating social control in the leftist church, Fortuyn broke the taboo and look what it got him, ridicule, insult, OMGHITLER, threats, and ultimately a bullet. They say they learned their lessons but it is worse then ever, ANYTHING BUT DEBATE PLEASE psst Hitler
one man against the red machine
ZingQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
a song
He debates in parliament on the basis that what he says is a hard truth: Islam is evil. He refuses to debate with Islamic scholars, scientists or Islamic organisations about what Islam is.Quote:
What do you mean, can't just decide that, he does nothing other then debating, in the parliament where it belongs, he won't go to Paul & Witteman no.