|
Shia rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
It wouldn't suprise me if a vast majority of Al Queda and Islamic fundamentalist funders actually live in Saudi Arabia. |
They do! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
How much "freedom of mobility" can a woman have considering she is outlawed from driving? How can a society that doesn't have proper, free elections be considered to consent to the social contract? How can a society that oppressors HALF of its population based upon gender really organise itself to "revolt"? If a society revolts against the social contract they are forced to "sign" and they are killed/imprisoned and the uprising put down does the social contract still exist? I mean, the government is still there, so by your reckoning it is still "accepted" by the populace? |
Freedom of mobility, meaning no one is bared from exiting the country, exists in Sudi Arabia. If one chooses to opt out of the social contract they are allowed to leave. With regard to revolt; it may not be easy, but it is possible. If a revolt is put down by force and those that survive do not rise again then they have accepted the social contract... they are willing to live in that state.
| quote: | | Im sorry, but I find moral relativism to be the last bastion for those that find universal human rights to be in the "too hard basket". |
This isn't an issue of morality, it is an issue about the legitimacy of law. Whether or not we consider the law to be just is inconsequential as we do not live under it. It is not up to us to force our justice system onto others. The way the west calls for change in the rest of the world is simply the modern version of "the white man's burden" and I think we know how well that played out in the 1800s.
| quote: | | did you or did you not support NATO's bombing of yugoslavia? milosovich (sp?) had the consent of the people (at least some of them ;)) |
I believe the key here is the word some. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I'm sorry but you just seem to think it's so easy to "not consent" by moving to a different country. Take me for example. If I did not agree with the UK, and wanted to break my "contract" with it, do you think I could? I have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU. But I can't afford to move and I don't speak any other languages so I wouldn't be able to get a job. Right there, you can start to see problems with your logic for the most obvious of examples. I cannot move to any other country other than in the EU because I am not a skilled worker and no country would accept me as an asylum seeker that faces oppression in my home country. Every country has immigration policies and none want to have to house refugees. They will do there utmost to prevent refugees from entry. Iraqi refugees in the UK are even being flown back to Iraq because Saddam has gone. If even a westerner like me cannot afford to emigrate how exactly do you expect the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world to? And what if their country is not considered oppressive and therefore they cannot claim "refugee" status (as would be the case with Saudi Arabia)? |
Why is it that you believe that if something is not easy it is not possible?
| quote: | In your head it's all too simple and easy - it is far removed from reality and this is why I think the "social contract" is a bull theory that cannot apply to reality (no matter what definition of the state it applies to)
The United Nations and every country that is a member disagrees with you. Again, you're letting "political theories" conflict with the reality of the world |
I disagree with you, it is neither simple nor easy... simple would be the assumption that only our system of justice and governance is legitimate. I see a great deal of arrogance here.
Political theories, explain the reality of the world. In this case we have a group of people who have elected to subject themselves to a legal and political system in exchange for a number of things. Essentially, every system of government and law is a negotiated settlement between a people and a those who seek to rule a territory... I will give you x if you buy support our governance. X can be a multitude of things, for some it's simply security of the person, for others it's a whole system of welfare, right, and freedoms. The choice is personal... I would not live in Saudi Arabia because I demand more then they offer; however, for others what is offered by the Saudi state is sufficient. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Freedom of mobility, meaning no one is bared from exiting the country, exists in Sudi Arabia. If one chooses to opt out of the social contract they are allowed to leave. With regard to revolt; it may not be easy, but it is possible. If a revolt is put down by force and those that survive do not rise again then they have accepted the social contract... they are willing to live in that state. |
:wtf:
Here's some advice: Instead of lapping up what you read in class, make your own mind up about issues. Do you honestly believe what you said above bares any resemblence to reality? And if you do, can you not see why the "social contract" theory just does not apply in reality?
You've learned some new political theory in class, and like all political theories, it looks great on paper, and like a child with a new toy, you can't wait to get back home and play with it.
But the mistake you are making is letting this political theory conflict with what you can see with your own eyes in Saudi Arabia. You've even gone on to say "have elected to subject themselves to a legal and political system" - well no they haven't, not at all. This stupid theory you cling to says they have, but reality says they HAVEN'T. They are not free to leave, no matter how much you claim they are "free to" - they aren't. Just because they have the "right" to leave (leaving aside all those children from around the world kidnapped to live with their father in Saudi Arabia) that in no way means they can and if you think it does then I'm afraid you have your head stuck in cloud cuckoo land (probably reading a book on philosophy)
You then make claims about legitimacy and to you, that means sovereignty is ultimate, something that nobody from outside of the territory has the right to infringe upon or criticise (because you claim that, by definition, every single person in the world is content with where they live). But your theory flies in the face of the United Nations and every country that has signed up to it (something I see you conveniently ingored when replying to my post above). The United Nations, of which the majority of Earth has signed up to, has a number of protocols on human rights etc etc. It also allows for criticism of governence and allows for the outside world to infringe on state's sovereignty.
You talk as if the "social contract" theory is the only theory that has ever been thought up, but I guess next week your class topic will be "criticisms of social contract theory" and you'll come back to us with a whole load of new opinions! :D |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Why is it that you believe that if something is not easy it is not possible? |
Where do you think Saudi Arabians can go to?
If you're a Palestinian living in Gaza but don't like it there, where can they go?
Where can 1 billion Chinese people who disagree with living in a dictatorship go? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
George, I understand that practical realities can make this more of less difficult in certain locations but never impossible. I think you just like to argue that the social contract is bull because you cannot accept that people may be willing to endorce something you find so deplorable. Ultimately, if people did not consent to living under the system they would escape, change it, or die trying... all are viable ways to show your disagreement. Staying and living under the system is consent, even if just passive. If you're unwilling to do the difficult things or take the risks then you are electing to subject yourself to the system of government and rule.
Clearly, you will never agree with me on this nor I with you. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You talk as if the "social contract" theory is the only theory that has ever been thought up, but I guess next week your class topic will be "criticisms of social contract theory" and you'll come back to us with a whole load of new opinions! :D |
:stongue:
You seem to believe I am still a student and have just learned of this theory, I assure you that is not the case. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
George, I understand that practical realities can make this more of less difficult in certain locations but never impossible. I think you just like to argue that the social contract is bull because you cannot accept that people may be willing to endorce something you find so deplorable. Ultimately, if people did not consent to living under the system they would escape, change it, or die trying... all are viable ways to show your disagreement. Staying and living under the system is consent, even if just passive. If you're unwilling to do the difficult things or take the risks then you are electing to subject yourself to the system of government and rule. |
You have the cheek to suggest I'm looking at this from a purely Western perspective yet you seem to think everyone in the world can just hop on a plane and find a new life in another country simply by clicking their heels together three times. It is not possible for a sizable portion of any population to just "escape". No country in the world would admit them. And no way could that amount of people afford to move even if they were to be permitted anywhere.
You also think that people will easily revolt, well knows how you can make that assertion. Maybe in Canada it would be easy, but in the Middle East where states have, since their independence, spent all their time protecting themselves from prospective revolutions and coups, its not exactly the easiest thing in the world to achieve, and anybody who thinks it is, or anybody who has the belief that if a populatuion were unhappy they could just rise up, clearly has no concept of political reality.
If you think that people living under horrible and vicious oppression actually choose to live their due to the absence of any opposition or revolution then you need to do a hell of a lot more research into the methods dictatorships use to ensure their populations have no power to make any change to the status quo |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
:stongue:
You seem to believe I am still a student and have just learned of this theory, I assure you that is not the case. |
In that case you do an excellent impression of one |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You have the cheek to suggest I'm looking at this from a purely Western perspective yet you seem to think everyone in the world can just hop on a plane and find a new life in another country simply by clicking their heels together three times. It is not possible for a sizable portion of any population to just "escape". No country in the world would admit them. And no way could that amount of people afford to move even if they were to be permitted anywhere.
You also think that people will easily revolt, well knows how you can make that assertion. Maybe in Canada it would be easy, but in the Middle East where states have, since their independence, spent all their time protecting themselves from prospective revolutions and coups, its not exactly the easiest thing in the world to achieve, and anybody who thinks it is, or anybody who has the belief that if a populatuion were unhappy they could just rise up, clearly has no concept of political reality.
If you think that people living under horrible and vicious oppression actually choose to live their due to the absence of any opposition or revolution then you need to do a hell of a lot more research into the methods dictatorships use to ensure their populations have no power to make any change to the status quo |
Once again you are arguing that because something is difficult it is not possible. What you're missing is that if people objected strongly enough then they would take the difficult path. It's not a question of whether or not they agree completely, it's whether or not their objection is strong enough to move them to action.
It seems to me that you're making excuses for why people don't object rather then facing the reality that most of the people living under Islamic law don't object. How arragant are you to believe that because you find it intolerable no one else could possibly see merit in it?
Since you're clearly unable to think beyond your own convictions this conversation is no longer worth having. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Once again you are arguing that because something is difficult it is not possible. |
I never said it was impossible. I said it was impossible for a sizable portion of the population to emigrate en masse which would be required to show "discontent" at the state.
For you theory to work, people in their thousands and millions would have to be able to leave a country in order to prove a "discontent" at the political system of a state - tell me yes or no if that is possible or not?
Social contract theory simply does not work as an indicator of discontnt or not. The only way it could possibly work as a legitimate political theory is in a liberal democracy where citizens have the ability to register their discontent at the ballot box.
Social contract theory, when applied to dictatorships, simply does not work as a theory. It can not explain the situation there or explain the feeling of the citizens. All social contract theory does when applied to a dictatorship is to justify the actions of that dictatorship by setting impossible tasks for the citizens of that country to accomplish before it is accepted they do not consent to that political system. It also ignores the methods of which dictatorships use to control a population. You also ignore the entire contempory history of the Middle East (or you have no knowledge of it) and the experiences the nation state has had in that region.
Tell me, are you aware of the meaning of the word "fear"? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| (By the way, the young Shia girl who is the subject of this thread showed her "discontent" at the law of the land and broke it, look what happened to her...) |
|
|
|
|
