Women beast of burden.

I'd just like to ask how it's 200 year old tribal laws and culture. I was under the impression that it was centuries old shariah law straight from the Koran.

Sharia Law is fluid, it depends on the Leading Imans or muffti interpretation of the Koren and that changes daily with the radicals. In some Islamic countries the pedulum swings back and forth on many Islamic issue regarding women depending on how hardline the Imams and Mufftis are. Iran allowed males and females to study together and that has recently changed under Sharia Law. It now forbids men viewing women so they put up screens and if that isn't an option women can no longer continue their studies.

Maybe so, but it's not like sharia law has ever been interpreted to say "Infidels schmimfidels! Let's give everyone candy and talk about unicorns!" or something along those lines having to do with women.
It's pretty much limited to having women below men in one way or another. After all, it all comes straight from the Koran, and you'd have to have a really, really loose interpretation of that to have women equal to men.

Sigh.

All religions wiped out?

Sorry, but that won't actually change anything, and wouldn't be of any benefit.

*smirks* Forgive this less than stellar example, but haven't you seen South Park?

Anyway, human nature is the same regardless of whether they're acting under a religion, non-religious ideology, nationism, whatever.

As long as societies exist, the same flaws, excesses and abuses found in religion will exist, because religion isn't their cause, human nature is.

And I have no interest in annihilating the human race, sorry. So we'll just have to live with said abuses, and fight them when we can.

Ah, the wisdom of South Park. We must never question it, for it is not made by two highly opinionated and lowly IQed people. I also notice that the two people I've seen here with south park avatars were atheist and very vociferously so.

Sigh.

I was referencing a humorous episode, and making it clear that I knew it wasn't precisely the best example.

However, do tell where you found its creators' IQ scores. Could you send me a link? I'm quite curious where you get your information.

Also, opinionated people? Clearly they're opinionated. As are you. Big whoop.

Anyway, the episode in question criticized the belief that without religion things would be fine.

As it showed a future world where atheism was ruling, and had splintered into numerous groups arguing, as religions do, about stuff. In their case, the "ultimate question", which was an absurd bit about what the name of the atheist groups was.

In other words, it was making fun of atheistic beliefs that without religion, things would be fine.

Also, I also notice that two people I've seen recently who are Christians past happened to support killing people indiscriminately.

See the problem with that arguement? I hope you do. It's the same problem with your arguement about South Park avatars. Only... my example was more obviously absurd.

I realized what episode you were refering to. It was still ruined it with a half baked moral idea at the end like most others.

We all know what I meant with the IQ's so please let's not make an issue out of it.

Do I support killing people indiscriminately? I don't think Pinochet does either, but...

No the real answer is for human beings to evolve beyond such behavior...as long as we spend half the day pissing on each other trees and fire hydrants and playing sick junior high dominance games it won't matter what paradym they use to justify it...If it's not religion it will be political philosophy like Rouseau hell even Aristotle believed women should be held as common property ....
if not politics it will be tradition or culture or patriotism if not that the law of nature or some other cave man reason not to evolve as a culture and a race

The degree to which a society is susceptible to barbaric influences is best revealed by its treatment of women and children. Along such lines, most of the Third World qualifies as an existence beneath the threshold of Civilization.

Reagaknight, no, I wasn't referring to you and Pinochet! I was using a made up example to show the absurdity of the arguement you gave, that the two people on this site with South Park avatars were atheists, implying something negative about the show.

I gave an absurd example using the same kind of logic. That was what I was doing, pointing out how silly the arguement was.

Here, though, I'll make this clear in my introduction, but there's something you should know about me:

Pointless, absurd, vitriolic insults against other people for no good reason pisses me off, regardless of who does it.

It really, really upsets me. To me, it's the hallmark of children who have nothing good to say, and is the antithesis of the actions of rational adults.

If you said "yo yo, Bush sucks A$$, he conned us into a war for oil" or some other infantile junk, I'd be just about as annoyed as with the meaningless insults you gave. All such things do is divide us in a worthless way. It's as absurd as saying Al Sharpton is the devil or Dick Cheney is a Sith Lord.

And, such things destroy debate, the possibiltiy of debate, by first putting down the people themselves, and dismissing anything positive about them, and second alienating people who are affiliated but who would have listened had you not acted stupid.

Therefore, such actions are, in my mind at least, unacceptable, and worthy only of scorn from any rational adult.

Please define for me third world, because in the definition I am aware of Brazil and many South American countries can be included, and most are definatly not "beneath the threshold of Civilization", maybe of industrialization, but I didn't know that was a requirement?

VIVA BRAZIL!!!

I think that to tar all with the same brush is a mistake, and l have definately been guilty fo this myself.

The term third world actually came from those who were not major powers in the Cold war, I think, not really based on poverty.

Brazilian poverty is appalling. Yes, Brazil is Third World. I love Latin America dearly, but it is plagued by barbarism. Granted, conditions aren't as bad there as they are in Black Africa, any Muslim country, or India and its immediate surroundings. Nonetheless, it's a frig'n nightmare for the majority of its citizens. Sorry.

Oh don't be sorry, I agree with you. I only disagree the we are any less civilized than anyone else. Unless I need to reexamine my definition of civil. We have a long way to go to exterminate poverty, an unfortunatly not enough good men and women in power to take the necessary steps.



Exactly, First world countries are capitalist and industrialized, Second World countries are Socialists, Third World are capitalists but sub-industrialized. You can understand my concern when people use economic labels for moral definitions.

I had always thought being civilized was about a mindset, not poverty. Although Pinochet is right in that the countries he's talking about are third world.

"You can understand my concern when people use economic labels for moral definitions."

It all gets garbled up in the goulash of life. Poverty breeds crime, revolution, victimization, corruption, etc., etc. Yes....it's all inter-related. Nothing exists in isolation.

Let me set up an analogy of this thought: Poverty is the uterus, crime, revoltution, victimization, corruption, ect... is the baby, but I believe that what matters the most is the sperm and the egg, the thoughts and the actions, they make up the person, yes the enviroment has an effect, but it only shapes what already was.