Which Civilization has been the biggest bunch of bastards throughout history?

[Ethelred]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Would you mind making some sort of demarcation when you change who you are replying to? Thank you ever so much.

So? Laws of the state have to come from somewhere, and in some societies they originated from religion (like, say, the US).

There is a considerable difference between laws passed by a legislature that is NOT allowed to use religion as the entire basis of the laws and laws that were written down long ago by Mohammed.

You think they are wrong because you believe in eye for an eye. Europeans would counter with the statement, an eye for an eye leaves a society blind.

You are putting words in my mouth. Naught naughty. Deal with what I say not with a this product of your own imagination.

The death penalty has also been put upon rapists, and not to far in the past, 'uppity' blacks.

Bad laws. They are gone now.

Um... no. It is stateless because they chose not to organize in states. They chose to live in village society, when they could have organized more, if they chose.

That is not choosing that is inertia.

Like I said before, learn some history.

Like I said before. I have.

Um... you just totally contradicted yourself... seeing as you said, in the statement JUST before this one:

I did no such thing.

But you want to kill people that torture. Please try to be consistant here.

Torturers KILL. Aren't you aware of that? They don't just put electrodes on genitalia. They torture people to death. Get the picture now?

I'd say he's speaking for at least 80% of Europeans. Only a very few Europeans don't disagree morally with the DP, from what I've seen.

Thats nice. You can support that hmmm?

I am unimpressed by numbers invented by people that invent my stands on things. You are not a trusted source of the thinking of others.

Plenty of our laws in the US come from English Common Law, which could say wasn't a free society either.

So. The US is a free society. Napleonic code didn't come from a free society either. Its used in Lousiana. Part of the treaty that came with the Louisiana Purchase. Our actual laws are created by state and Federal legislatures. The English Common Law is consulted to see the history behind them mostly. Originally however we did not have a large body of enacted laws. They had to use something in the meantime. They used what they were used to.

It's been 1300 years (about) since Islam was founded... I don't remember much enlightened democracy in Europe in 1300 AD.

So what? This isn't 1300 anywhere.

Iceland had a democracy then by the way. The worlds oldest parliment is the Allthing. First met in 999 to decide whether to go christian or not.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I fear that such threat is in reallity "What is the civilization you dislike the most..."

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Fuzzy decision. A specific line has to be drawn....

That is exactly the point. These are all 'fuzzy decisions'
where one must resort to consensus of opinion to form a law. However, a consensus of opinion does not mean 'whatever the US decides' for foreign countries, as you seem to believe it should.

Adultery, for example, is not a victimless 'crime'. The husband or wife who is betrayed is most certainly a victim. After all, they formed a 'binding' marriage contract. If someone in the US violates a legally binding contract, there are usually consequences.

Well in the US the answer is mostly yes. Who is to decide what is offensive after all. I found former Secretary of the Interior Watt to be wholly and completely offensive every time he opened that oriface in his face that simulated a mouth. Still, he had the right to do so.

As an example of this, I find the US tolerance of (text) child porn on the web to be completely abhorent and would like to see that banned...

Quite. The US does not permit religous laws. What I have been talking about is other nations where the religious laws are permited.

The US also enforces religious laws. For example, why should a man be only allowed one wife? This has implications to Mormons I believe. There are many such examples.

By the way the US government has no religion. Except thou shalt pay thy taxes.

Seriously though, I think your moral beliefs, apon which your laws are based are heavily influenced by chritianity, so it amounts to the same thing.

I would go so far as to suggest that the US constitution (and its amendments) have become a 'religion'.

Ask the Algerians. From my point of view it isn't democratic. Its denying people the opportunity to change their minds later. Now a people could decide to vote in an fundamentlist government and STILL have elections afterwards. That would at least have a chance of being democratic should the society discover its mistake.

My point of view is exatly contrary. I think it would be fundamentally undemocratic to force a country to elect its leaders. It is not even clear that democracy always gives the best leaders. I believe that it has a greater chance of doing so than all the other systems, but there have been plenty of dreadful democratically elected leaders.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
I fear that such threat is in reallity "What is the civilization you dislike the most..."

You are exactly right.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Lot of nation have and had bastard. Fewer nation had or have great men (and women).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


That is exactly the point. These are all 'fuzzy decisions'
where one must resort to consensus of opinion to form a law.

There is nothing fuzzy about being dead. The age of consent is quite diffent from murder.

However, a consensus of opinion does not mean 'whatever the US decides' for foreign countries, as you seem to believe it should.

If you want to make up my side for me like this why are you bothering to quote me at all? Why are you bother to pretend to discuss for that matter. I am sure you would be much happier arguing with a tape recording of yourself.

Adultery, for example, is not a victimless 'crime'. The husband or wife who is betrayed is most certainly a victim.

I didn't say it was a victimless action. Its not a crime though in many places. Like most of the US and Europe.

After all, they formed a 'binding' marriage contract. If someone in the US violates a legally binding contract, there are usually consequences.

Non criminal consequences.

As an example of this, I find the US tolerance of (text) child porn on the web to be completely abhorent and would like to see that banned...

Free speech. There is no one being harmed by it. Its certainly bette that the real thing.

The US also enforces religious laws. For example, why should a man be only allowed one wife? This has implications to Mormons I believe. There are many such examples.

Its not a religious law. Its a social thing. Many cultures have the same law and there is nothing in the Bible that says anything against polygamy. Its purely social not religious.

The LDS has made polygamy a no-no. Not all Mormons are members of the LDS but the vast majority are. There is group of Mormons in Mexico that practice polygamy. I bring them up when I argue with Mormons.

Seriously though, I think your moral beliefs, apon which your laws are based are heavily influenced by chritianity, so it amounts to the same thing.

They are also heavily influenced by Roman laws. That was the original source for many laws.

I would go so far as to suggest that the US constitution (and its amendments) have become a 'religion'.

You can go as far as you like but don't expect a lot people to buy what you are shoveling. Maybe if I need some fertilizer.

My point of view is exatly contrary. I think it would be fundamentally undemocratic to force a country to elect its leaders.

You don't really understand the word 'democracy' do you?

I didn't say a thing about force in any case. You really do have a hard time dealing with what people actually say.

It is not even clear that democracy always gives the best leaders.

Who ever said it did? It simply gives the oportunity to get rid of them without resorting to violence and revolution.

I believe that it has a greater chance of doing so than all the other systems, but there have been plenty of dreadful democratically elected leaders.

Obviously. In a democracy you can vote them out. No one was allowed to vote out the Taliban or King George III. They had to be KILLED out. Democracy allows for change without killing.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Lot of nation have and had bastard. Fewer nation had or have great men (and women).

A lot of great men HAVE been bastards. Alexander the Great was a realy nasty SOB and a very bad drunk. Napleon wasn't exactly the nicest great man ever either.

I don't want to hear that Hitler was nice to his dogs. He wasn't. He tested his suicide pill on his dog and decided to use a gun instead.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

You're right, but I wasn' enough clear and I wasn't thinking exactly about Napoleon (who killed a lot of french).

I was talking about people who make humanity advances in science, arts and philosophy. Talking about science I don't mean technological advances, because such advances have always a good side and a bad side.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Hoek
To anyone who thinks Islamic civilization has been the worst needs to get their heads out of their asses.

Sorry sunshine, but this is exactly the kind of stupidity I was fighting for three pages.

While currently Arab (and not all muslim countries are Arab) civilization is clearly the worst out there, all throughout the dark and middle ages, Islamic civilization carried the mantle of classical civilization.

It did indeed, while serverly oppressing it's own people and all forigeners.

Our entire numerical system is based on Arabic math, and much of what we know about Astronomy originated from Arabic studies.

As stated earlier, there are tons of great things that came from the Islamic world, it changes not one Iota of the choas they spread through aggression over the years.

It wasn't until the 20th century that it became so crazy.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Your a nice guy Hoek, or I'd get really insulting when presented by such an assinine statement as that.
It shows zero knowledge of Balkan history for one thing, ask any Greek scholar what they think of your Islamic friends through the ages.
It also shows that you are the one with an apendage in their rectum, and if you truly believe that statement, there is no hope for you.

[Bereta_Eder]

Usually, great men are to be found in the arts and the letters...
not in wars of expansion...

However (and maybe I should make a separate thread about this)

ALexander the Great DID say " Greek is not only he who has Greek blood but everyone that has the paideia (=education, mindset) of the Greek".

This gave way to integration of the conquered lands and less cruelty I think.

He also gave the green light to his officers to marry "barbarian" women if they wanted to.

Just some tidbits of info.

[Chris 62]

Ah, Paiktis is here.

Paiktis, would you like to tell friend Hoek a little about Greek history from say, 1600-1821?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Ah, Paiktis is here.

Paiktis, would you like to tell friend Hoek a little about Greek history from say, 1600-1821?

Heh, what's to say... Murders, murders, murders...
Ravaged lands, dark, uninovating ottoman culture based only on arms...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
There is nothing fuzzy about being dead. The age of consent is quite diffent from murder.

So why do you want to kill people?

If you want to make up my side for me like this why are you bothering to quote me at all? Why are you bother to pretend to discuss for that matter. I am sure you would be much happier arguing with a tape recording of yourself.

I might get a better discussion too. What is your problem? I try and be civil to you, despite you ignoring the bits of my posts you don't like and whining on about other, completely irrelevent, issues. Or are you getting a little tense because you haven't had the chance to kill someone lately? Just itching to pull that lever....?

I didn't say it was a victimless action. Its not a crime though in many places. Like most of the US and Europe.

If it is not victimless, why would one object to it being illegal? And if it is made illegal, why object to the level of punishment?

Free speech. There is no one being harmed by it.

Now I see where you are coming from....

Its not a religious law. Its a social thing. Many cultures have the same law and there is nothing in the Bible that says anything against polygamy. Its purely social not religious.

What social advantage does this law have? It seems completely religious to me.

You can go as far as you like but don't expect a lot people to buy what you are shoveling. Maybe if I need some fertilizer.

You don't really understand the word 'democracy' do you?

So how do you distinguish 'nationalist' fundamentalists like yourself from 'chistian' or 'islamic' fundamentalists? OR do you have no arguements opposing my point and merely wish to divert attention?

I didn't say a thing about force in any case. You really do have a hard time dealing with what people actually say.

Hmmm...this doesn't seem very consistent with:

No one was allowed to vote out the Taliban or King George III. They had to be KILLED out. Democracy allows for change without killing.

tut tut.

[Chris 62]

Seems there is a bit of a misunderstanding about Islamic history, many seem to be under the impression it was benevolent for places like Greece, and don't know that Greek children were taken at 5 years old by the Islamics to serve as lifetime slaves in their armies as Jannisaries, among many other such deeds.

No matter what your stance on the ME today, I ask people to try and look objectivily at the past, and stop these "Islam was wonderful" stuff, because it wasn't. (that doesn't mean any other was any better, as far as christianity for example)

[Tolls]

Chris:
As I said before, you seem to be applying the term Islamic to everything that is in reality Ottoman...the blame for the bulk of this has to lie with the Ottoman Turks, especially when you compare their set up with the Mid-East around the time of the first crusade.