12. Stop using silly language such as "Islamophobia".
It's not silly. Rereading some of these threads in the cold light of day, you sometimes feel that Muslims feel like a form of insect life for many posters. And that's in a relatively civilised corner of the internet. .
Would you care to quote some of these comments that suggest posters feel like Muslims are a "form of insect life"? Because this sounds like the sort of unsubstantiated fearmongering of the "Islamophobia" demon that is being complained about.
Have a read for yourself.
I have and haven't seen it. I suppose it's possible I've missed it, but the more likely situation is that you're just throwing out the claim without any actual evidence as part of your own ideological biases.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
I am pleased to see someone providing sane balance and quite rightly calling out the perverse element in our midst.
You seem to have more problem with someone accurately calling someone a paedophile than people taking a paedophile's teachings as the word of God.
The non-die-hards will think twice before voting in favour of Labour’s greatest weakness.
O/T
A very impressive and deeply moving turnout in France yesterday - whatever the intentions of the murderous scum who committed these recent atrocities was, I don’t think bringing Palestinian and Israelis leaders together was it.
Your point is fair. The wider intention of these terrorists is to provoke. And they broadly have failed in France although from the looks of the usual suspects in PB they have succeeded. The wider question about the purpose of this attack is, was it 'official' or was it just the act of 4 indoctrinated people who thought it was a good idea. Judging from the TV the two gunmen thought it would be good to charge through a plate glass door against a phalanx of armed police in a scene reminiscent of 'The Gauntlet' - this does not suggest a sane mindset.
Abbas of course simply wants a Palestinian homeland, he is a different strand of arab and events like Paris are hardly helping him, not least since the French are broadly on his side. Indeed thinking about it if we can all think back - it simply used to be 'arabs', not 'muslims'. Our inability to solve the Arab-Israeli issue has allowed the problem to drift into one based on fundamental religion rather than inter nation politics.
Establishing a Palestinian State must now be a priority of British foreign policy. Our disastrous Middle East policies are once again a source of radicalisation, Syria and Libya have resulted in blowback far more severe than our elite thought possible.
If you are going to use incitement to violence (That would be my preferred measure of legality rather than hatred) as a test then four out of seven are still illegal.
What do others think ?
They're all really nasty. But I think only the ones encouraging violence should be banned.
Well was there grass on the pitch when the marriage was consumated (By John) or not ?
OTOH:
The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[7] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10]
Certainly both would fit most people's definition of a paedophile, though you'd have to include me in the Daily Mail one too based off this article:
There's contradictory evidence, some say King John was desperate for an heir and started consummation on the wedding night, but she did not produce an heir until she was 17/18.
It's all about context, I think in that era, when life expectancy was a lot lower, and powerful people married not for love, but for political unions, there have been some interesting marriages.
I believe the age of consent in both countries was effectively once a girl hit puberty, she was ready to be married off.
Don't forget Margaret Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. He married her at the age of 12 and she gave birth at the age of 13 to our future King Henry VII. She was so young that it damaged her body irrevocably and she wasn't able to bear children ever again after.
That's the one I was thinking off, but couldn't remember the name, and I certainly wasn't going to google that on a work laptop
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Different times, different expectations, different morality. Romeo and Juliet was 13 year olds.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
No, because you miss the point, in both eras things were the norm, that we could consider illegal today.
So it seems unfair to judge a man on current accepted norms.
Would you judge say Sir Winston Churchill as a homophobe because under his government they chemically castrated homosexuals?
Mike, another way to ask this, or look at it, is to look at how liability leaders have fared in actual General Elections. With polling data that's actually quantifiable. The point here, at least the one which Conservatives will be pinning our hopes on, is that when proverbial push comes to shove, when the time comes finally to decide, people will ask 'can I see this man being our Prime Minister?' Compared to David Cameron who looks statesmanlike the answer will be a resounding 'No' for many people. This is how Neil Kinnock was finally skewered in 1992.
Let's look at it another way. I cannot think of a single liability leader who has been elected PM:
Gordon Brown (nightmare) IDS (booted out by the Tories before the electorate could do it, Bald*) Michael Howard (although I rather liked him he was a LL) William Hague (actually very capable, but bald and in the right job at the wrong time) John Major by 1997 was looking out of his depth Neil Kinnock Michael Foot
But you have to remember, crucially, that Britain was taking a leap with her: the late 70's were still not a time of mass emancipation and it took time before a lot of male voters (and actually female too) were prepared to put their trust in a woman Prime Minister.
So, Ed Miliband: can Labour win with such a liability leader? No.
*The bald comment is meant light-heartedly but the electorate tend not to favour them.
What about Ted Heath? Widely see as poor compared to the wit and slickness of Wilson, yet he won a surprise victory in 1970.
Heath's image suffered after 1970 and rightly so.
Ed Miliband: can Labour win with such a liability leader? It is very hard to see how wavering voters contemplating a Govt of Ed will then place a tick for a candidate that gives us a Govt of Ed. My hope is that this decision in the ballot booth will shave off a few % from Labour taking them into 28% or lower.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Spot on - as will we be by our heirs. Twas ever thus.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
The entire British royal family for the past 500 years has been descended from a pedophile relationship: as other posters have mentioned, the marriage of Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII) was undertaken at 12 and consumated when she was 13.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta? Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
Right now Labour are campaigning that voting SNP keeps the Tories in power.
The SNP are campaigning that voting Labour keeps the Tories in power.
The Tories are campaigning that voting SNP would put Labour in.
Which of these does Ed Miliband in the campaign help?
I think Miliband will continue to lose SLAB support, as his trust ratings are so low. More worryingly, however much Scottish Tories like Murphy, at the end of the day if they vote tactically for SLAB - they're effectively voting for Miliband.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
The barons had control of London, King John was holed up in Windsor castle... I don't think he had much choice but to sign to be honest or he may have ended up like Charlie I a few hundred years later... ;p
If you are going to use incitement to violence (That would be my preferred measure of legality rather than hatred) as a test then four out of seven are still illegal.
What do others think ?
They're all really nasty. But I think only the ones encouraging violence should be banned.
I agree. On commentisfree, you can routinely see the following:
"Tories are lower than vermin"
"Tories are all soulless bastards"
"Tories are evil"
To be consistent, those should be illegal. I see no difference expressing political over religious hatred - they are both choices.
Or, alternatively, we could do as you say and only ban the ones encouraging violence.
That's a rather problematic statement. Almost everyone, anywhere in the Western world, in, say, the 19th century, would have had a very diferent view from ours on subjects such as abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, or sex before marriage. We of course think our values are superior to theirs, and perhaps they are, but they wouldn't have agreed.
You can also apply this to the present day. Many people in Muslim, and in more traditional Christian, countries no doubt think our position on abortion is abhorrent. They probably also think the way we treat the elderly is appalling. I'm not sure things are quite as absolute as you imply.
Right now Labour are campaigning that voting SNP keeps the Tories in power.
The SNP are campaigning that voting Labour keeps the Tories in power.
The Tories are campaigning that voting SNP would put Labour in.
Which of these does Ed Miliband in the campaign help?
I think Miliband will continue to lose SLAB support, as his trust ratings are so low. More worryingly, however much Scottish Tories like Murphy, at the end of the day if they vote tactically for SLAB - they're effectively voting for Miliband.
Cameron is more popular in Scotland than Miliband. This unusual set of ratings coincides with Labour falling behind the SNP. Maybe the SLAB MPs should have mounted a coup against Miliband rather than Lamont?
If you are going to use incitement to violence (That would be my preferred measure of legality rather than hatred) as a test then four out of seven are still illegal.
What do others think ?
They're all really nasty. But I think only the ones encouraging violence should be banned.
I agree. On commentisfree, you can routinely see the following:
"Tories are lower than vermin"
"Tories are all soulless bastards"
"Tories are evil"
To be consistent, those should be illegal. I see no difference expressing political over religious hatred - they are both choices.
Or, alternatively, we could do as you say and only ban the ones encouraging violence.
Those are all legal (Though abhorrent) and should be legal - religion should be treated the same as politics in law, and not race. And violence, not hatred should be the legal line.
"How come Lib Dems think [David Ward] is a fit and proper person?"
The Lib Dems count David Alton among their Parliamentarians, a man who, 20 years ago, came very close to making it illegal to own copies of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Schindler's List' and 'The Godfather' in your home.
"Maybe we should toss [Magna Carta] in the bin because John was a "paedo"..."
The NeoConservatives have been doing a perfectly good job of binning it -- along with the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty of Westphalia -- without any 'pedo excuse'!
@Casino_Royale If those insults were banned it would result in a massive reduction on the PB servers, or do you propose that only lies and smears against the Tories be banned?
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
The point is against Socrates I'm afraid. Are we to ignore Islam's huge contributions to art, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, trade, etc and instead fixate on the life of Mohammed (judged by 21st Century standards) as some kind of proof of Islam's inherent wickedness?
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Utter garbage. Morality is a human construct and as such, it is subject to ebb and flow. How sad that a poster with such a name is unaware of this.
The entire British royal family for the past 500 years has been descended from a pedophile relationship: as other posters have mentioned, the marriage of Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII) was undertaken at 12 and consumated when she was 13.
B*llocks
Under canon law marriage was valid from the age of 12, how do we know this ? Because Edmund Tutor was her second husband, her first being John de la Pole, who she was married to as an infant and was allowed to set aside because she was (considerably) under 12 years, also no future king would be stupid enough to marry someone under conditions that would give a legal challenge to the legitimacy of his heirs, especially as it was just before of the War of the Roses and the atmosphere was deadly.
According to the law of the times it was completely legal and above board. Marriage was legal from 12 years old for a Tudor girl. Average life expectancy was under 35 years.
@Casino_Royale If those insults were banned it would result in a massive reduction on the PB servers, or do you propose that only lies and smears against the Tories be banned?
First prize in today's award for totally missing the point.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
The point is against Socrates I'm afraid. Are we to ignore Islam's huge contributions to art, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, trade, etc and instead fixate on the life of Mohammed (judged by 21st Century standards) as some kind of proof of Islam's inherent wickedness?
It's an ethical minefield, but moot in the case of Islam as their contributions have been fully assimilated by the wider world. The rights and wrongs of using data from Nazi experimentation on humans is still hotly debated.
"All [X] are lower than vermin" should be legal to say or write, however abhorrent a sentence it is.
"All [X] are lower than vermin, all [X] are thieves and pedos, all [X] should be rounded up and killed, starting with [Mr.X] of [Xtown], WHO'S WITH ME?!" should, unquestionably, not be legal to say or write.
The challenge, of course, is in legislation, lawyers and judges that are best able to define and decide exactly where a statement of the first kind becomes more like the second.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
The point is against Socrates I'm afraid. Are we to ignore Islam's huge contributions to art, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, trade, etc and instead fixate on the life of Mohammed (judged by 21st Century standards) as some kind of proof of Islam's inherent wickedness?
I've never claimed Islam is inherently wicked. I'm just saying that Mohammed was not a particularly moral human being - he was on a par with Genghis Khan. I am not making any argument beyond that. However, accurately describing him as someone who sexually assaulted children seems to rile some people, entirely unreasonably.
Right now Labour are campaigning that voting SNP keeps the Tories in power.
The SNP are campaigning that voting Labour keeps the Tories in power.
The Tories are campaigning that voting SNP would put Labour in.
Which of these does Ed Miliband in the campaign help?
I think Miliband will continue to lose SLAB support, as his trust ratings are so low. More worryingly, however much Scottish Tories like Murphy, at the end of the day if they vote tactically for SLAB - they're effectively voting for Miliband.
Cameron is more popular in Scotland than Miliband. This unusual set of ratings coincides with Labour falling behind the SNP. Maybe the SLAB MPs should have mounted a coup against Miliband rather than Lamont?
She did resign, tbf to her. The impression I got was that many would have regarded it as utterly below their dignity as Members of the Westminster Parliament to admit that Johann Lamont was their leader at all - which was part of the problem of course - so bothering to sack her would have been beyond the pale.
Back to the main point of your argument: I seem to recall that, in fact, Mr C was always more popular than Mr Miliband, well before the Labour/SNP crossover which did not take place till about indyref time (I assume you mean Westminster VI). You might want to check that, as it would imply that these two phenomena are [edit: not necessarily] directly related in a causal sense?
"All [X] are lower than vermin" should be legal to say or write, however abhorrent a sentence it is.
"All [X] are lower than vermin, all [X] are thieves and pedos, all [X] should be rounded up and killed, starting with [Mr.X] of [Xtown], WHO'S WITH ME?!" should, unquestionably, not be legal to say or write.
The challenge, of course, is in legislation, lawyers and judges that are best able to define and decide exactly where a statement of the first kind becomes more like the second.
The first is rude, but would in the past have been legal. Would probably be illegal now, if [X] was a racial term.
The second is incitement - And is clearly illegal.
We have had laws about this stuff for a while. I would have thought that "behead those who insult islam" would clearly be incitement.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Utter garbage. Morality is a human construct and as such, it is subject to ebb and flow. How sad that a poster with such a name is unaware of this.
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
"All [X] are lower than vermin" should be legal to say or write, however abhorrent a sentence it is.
"All [X] are lower than vermin, all [X] are thieves and pedos, all [X] should be rounded up and killed, starting with [Mr.X] of [Xtown], WHO'S WITH ME?!" should, unquestionably, not be legal to say or write.
The challenge, of course, is in legislation, lawyers and judges that are best able to define and decide exactly where a statement of the first kind becomes more like the second.
The first is rude, but would in the past have been legal. Would probably be illegal now, if [X] was a racial term.
The second is incitement - And is clearly illegal.
We have had laws about this stuff for a while. I would have thought that "behead those who insult islam" would clearly be incitement.
Would probably be illegal now, if [X] was a racial term. Or religious, as at the moment.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
The point is against Socrates I'm afraid. Are we to ignore Islam's huge contributions to art, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, trade, etc and instead fixate on the life of Mohammed (judged by 21st Century standards) as some kind of proof of Islam's inherent wickedness?
I've never claimed Islam is inherently wicked. I'm just saying that Mohammed was not a particularly moral human being - he was on a par with Genghis Khan. I am not making any argument beyond that. However, accurately describing him as someone who sexually assaulted children seems to rile some people, entirely unreasonably.
Well you are stating the obvious then. They were who they were. What's the point of harping on about it, other than to give offence, or buttress your own sense of moral superiority?
"According to the law of the times it was completely legal and above board..."
And there's the nub, Indigo -- according to the law of his time and place, so was the Prophet Mohammed.
Thomas Jefferson uttered one of the most quintessentially statements ever -- it matters not whether my neighbour believes there's one god, or twenty -- but he was still a man who owned slaves (and slept with the female ones). According to the law of the times it was completely legal and above board.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
The point is against Socrates I'm afraid. Are we to ignore Islam's huge contributions to art, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, trade, etc and instead fixate on the life of Mohammed (judged by 21st Century standards) as some kind of proof of Islam's inherent wickedness?
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume). But this is all whataboutery on both sides.
Right now Labour are campaigning that voting SNP keeps the Tories in power.
The SNP are campaigning that voting Labour keeps the Tories in power.
The Tories are campaigning that voting SNP would put Labour in.
Which of these does Ed Miliband in the campaign help?
I think Miliband will continue to lose SLAB support, as his trust ratings are so low. More worryingly, however much Scottish Tories like Murphy, at the end of the day if they vote tactically for SLAB - they're effectively voting for Miliband.
Cameron is more popular in Scotland than Miliband. This unusual set of ratings coincides with Labour falling behind the SNP. Maybe the SLAB MPs should have mounted a coup against Miliband rather than Lamont?
She did resign, tbf to her. The impression I got was that many would have regarded it as utterly below their dignity as Members of the Westminster Parliament to admit that Johann Lamont was their leader at all - which was part of the problem of course - so bothering to sack her would have been beyond the pale.
Back to the main point of your argument: I seem to recall that, in fact, Mr C was always more popular than Mr Miliband, well before the Labour/SNP crossover which did not take place till about indyref time (I assume you mean Westminster VI). You might want to check that, as it would imply that these two phenomena are [edit: not necessarily] directly related in a causal sense?
Yes Lamont was a duffer but Miliband has done more damage to SLAB's chances than she did. Miliband has been there since 2010 and the SNP got their majority in 2011.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Utter garbage. Morality is a human construct and as such, it is subject to ebb and flow. How sad that a poster with such a name is unaware of this.
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
To take a more prosaic example: Is spanking children 'univerally' right or wrong? Or is 'universal' short hand for 'what I think'?
Right now Labour are campaigning that voting SNP keeps the Tories in power.
The SNP are campaigning that voting Labour keeps the Tories in power.
The Tories are campaigning that voting SNP would put Labour in.
Which of these does Ed Miliband in the campaign help?
I think Miliband will continue to lose SLAB support, as his trust ratings are so low. More worryingly, however much Scottish Tories like Murphy, at the end of the day if they vote tactically for SLAB - they're effectively voting for Miliband.
Cameron is more popular in Scotland than Miliband. This unusual set of ratings coincides with Labour falling behind the SNP. Maybe the SLAB MPs should have mounted a coup against Miliband rather than Lamont?
Even Sturgeon is more popular then Miliband with SLAB's dwindling 25% core support. I think the combination of Miliband and Murphy will lose SLAB female support in particular. The SNP surge is being led by women, who now makeup 44% of SNP members (up from 33% ).
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
Well you are stating the obvious then. They were who they were. What's the point of harping on about it, other than to give offence, or buttress your own sense of moral superiority?
1. To establish that accurately describing the historical record should be socially acceptable. Amazingly, plenty of people think it is some sort of "perverse" "extremism" to do so, not least TSE and Flightpath on this very board.
2. To argue that Mohammed did some very immoral things and that he should thus not be followed as a moral leader.
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
"I would have thought that 'behead those who insult islam' would clearly be incitement."
I would have too, unquestionably, but unfortunately the police would rather arrest tourists taking photographs of double-decker buses or drunkards calling police horses gay (both 100% true cases).
I am aware that we always have to be cautious and recognise that many of the electorate do not pay as much attention to the finer nuances of politics as we do on this site but are we really saying that there are material numbers of voters who don't know that Ed Miliband is the Labour leader?
It seems to me the default assumption that the negative Ed factor is already priced in to current polling. It also seems to me that his ratings are so low that there is not much room for a further negative movement. It is possible that the salience of his uselessness will increase and it will make more natural Labour votes hesitate but it is far from certain.
The Tories' polling position is increasingly grim. With the biases in the system against them they need a larger lead than Labour does (if not as large a lead as they needed for a majority the last time). There is no sign of them getting that. They can hope that Labour resumes it decline after the Christmas blip but at the moment that is only a hope. Time is running out.
....people who've always voted Labour will say "We've got to get Labour back before the Tories wreck the NHS".
Why don't Labour voters understand that if get Labour back you always wreck the economy and increase unemployment, meaning there's no money to fund the NHS?
By the way Nick, I'm not sure if I've asked you this before but if Labour gets and enacts its London 3-Bed Semi tax, do you agree that Labour MPs should pay it out of their own pockets and not expense it?
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
That's just silly. They didn't have those rights at the time, we have since decided people should have those rights, and it would be rightly be wrong to treat people in that way now.
If you follow your line of reasoning, in the next century it might well be by common consent decided that people have the right to end their life when they see fit, scientifically advances might well cause the view that abortion, is immoral under any circumstance, and certainly under current time limits, and fetuses are accorded the relevant rights. Would we suddenly all become wicked people because people in the future had decided the world looked different for them to how it looks for us today?
"I would have thought that 'behead those who insult islam' would clearly be incitement."
I would have too, unquestionably, but unfortunately the police would rather arrest tourists taking photographs of double-decker buses or drunkards calling police horses gay (both 100% true cases).
Our resident thriller writer pointed this out a while ago.
To take a more prosaic example: Is spanking children 'univerally' right or wrong? Or is 'universal' short hand for 'what I think'?
I would say that spanking is in the grey zone that you can have a reasonable position on each side. But the existence of the grey zone does not mean that some things aren't very clearly in the black zone of outright wrong. While there can be reasonable debate about whether spanking is right or wrong, it's pretty clear that chattel slavery, pogroms and sex with nine year olds are wrong.
Well, on art, you could start by visiting the V and A (and make sure you don't miss the carpets, which are just 'some carpets' in the sense that Michaelangelo just painted 'some pictures'), or consider the Taj Mahal, or Isfahan.
On science it's hard to know where to start, but basically for hundreds of years Arabic scientists and mathematicians were the biz.
On literature, the fact that you can't think of any is because you haven't bothered to find out about it.
The discussion on the thread sometimes blurs what should be considered as
1. illegal (e.g. conduct likely to promote or lead to violence - I think we all agree on that) 2.an unreasonable restriction on freedom of opinion (requiring people to like or dislike Islam, or requiring a Muslim to adopt current dress practice) 3.common courtesy (e.g. not going out of one's way to insult other people's religions) 4. simply making no sense (attacking Islam or Magna Carta because the bloke responsible allegedly didn't conform to modern ideas of sexual behaviour).
The borderlines are difficult (in particular the area of inciting hatred without specific incitement to violence) and may change over time but the general principle seems clear enough. Many of the proposals put forward by Socrates and Cyclefree trip over the third one, as Richard N's post yesterday pointed out.
Take Lincoln. 18th on Labour's target list. Conservative majority 1,058. Locals rate Karl McCartney, the MP. Will they refrain from voting UKIP - 17% were thinking of voting for that party according to Lord Ashcroft's recent poll - to keep Labour out? Odds with Ladbroke - Labour 2/5, Con 15/8, UKIP 20-1 and LibDem 100-1 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/lincoln/
The discussion on the thread sometimes blurs what should be considered as
1. illegal (e.g. conduct likely to promote or lead to violence - I think we all agree on that) 2.an unreasonable restriction on freedom of opinion (requiring people to like or dislike Islam, or requiring a Muslim to adopt current dress practice) 3.common courtesy (e.g. not going out of one's way to insult other people's religions) 4. simply making no sense (attacking Islam or Magna Carta because the bloke responsible allegedly didn't conform to modern ideas of sexual behaviour).
There seems to be a distinct failure to enforce the current contents of 1. with arrests and where appropriate, sentences, until we have that right its almost pointless trying to decide if anything else should be added to that category.
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
That's just silly. They didn't have those rights at the time, we have since decided people should have those rights, and it would be rightly be wrong to treat people in that way now.
If you follow your line of reasoning, in the next century it might well be by common consent decided that people have the right to end their life when they see fit, scientifically advances might well cause the view that abortion, is immoral under any circumstance, and certainly under current time limits, and fetuses are accorded the relevant rights. Would we suddenly all become wicked people because people in the future had decided the world looked different for them to how it looks for us today?
I'm not arguing that these things are wrong because of what's currently legal. I'm arguing they're wrong because I feel that the arguments that they are wrong are overwhelmingly stronger than those that they're not wrong. It happens to be the case that this century is more moral than the 18th, but that forward progression is not inevitable. It's possible that the next century may be a more moral, or a less moral one than we have now.
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
I thought that too. What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt. It seems that around the early 14th century scientific thinking in the Islamic world just stopped, almost as if there was a collective decision that enough knowledge had been gained and it was time to do something else.
The discussion on the thread sometimes blurs what should be considered as
1. illegal (e.g. conduct likely to promote or lead to violence - I think we all agree on that) 2.an unreasonable restriction on freedom of opinion (requiring people to like or dislike Islam, or requiring a Muslim to adopt current dress practice) 3.common courtesy (e.g. not going out of one's way to insult other people's religions) 4. simply making no sense (attacking Islam or Magna Carta because the bloke responsible allegedly didn't conform to modern ideas of sexual behaviour).
The borderlines are difficult (in particular the area of inciting hatred without specific incitement to violence) and may change over time but the general principle seems clear enough. Many of the proposals put forward by Socrates and Cyclefree trip over the third one, as Richard N's post yesterday pointed out.
I didn't see Richard's post. Which were the proposals I put forward that seem to go out of the way to insult other people's religions? Does accurately describing Mohammed as someone that sexually interfered with children count, even though it's a historical fact? What about describing Scientology as a cult that brutally exploitative and harassing of its critics?
In your four step system, do you agree that these comments should be banned then?
"Cut off their heads and fingers."
"Punishments have been prepared [for Muslims]. They'll be burnt and beaten."
"Go to war with them Moslems. Deal with them properly. God's on our side."
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
That's just silly. They didn't have those rights at the time, we have since decided people should have those rights, and it would be rightly be wrong to treat people in that way now.
If you follow your line of reasoning, in the next century it might well be by common consent decided that people have the right to end their life when they see fit, scientifically advances might well cause the view that abortion, is immoral under any circumstance, and certainly under current time limits, and fetuses are accorded the relevant rights. Would we suddenly all become wicked people because people in the future had decided the world looked different for them to how it looks for us today?
I'm not arguing that these things are wrong because of what's currently legal. I'm arguing they're wrong because I feel that the arguments that they are wrong are overwhelmingly stronger than those that they're not wrong. It happens to be the case that this century is more moral than the 18th, but that forward progression is not inevitable. It's possible that the next century may be a more moral, or a less moral one than we have now.
It therefore follows there are things you think of as "right" now, which future generations will think of as "wrong", since they will be (in your terms) more moral than you are. It is therefore a logical nonsense to say that somethings are universally right and wrong.
One might also ask what gives the western world the trump card on what is moral.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Right and wrong are universal. I agree with your point on ancestors, but nobody is arguing that. If people felt King John was the perfect human being, and people hung on his every word, he would deserve criticism on this point.
Utter garbage. Morality is a human construct and as such, it is subject to ebb and flow. How sad that a poster with such a name is unaware of this.
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
You just don't get it do you. Let's try 'Judge not lest you be judged.' The past is another country as will be the future. Try exercising your morality in the present - that is hard enough since people disagree even on that. You are not God so you should stop acting like you are.
David Cameron Has Stopped Trying To Wrestle The UKIP Pig
"Just what are the Conservatives’ election priorities? If you go to the Conservatives’ website, you’ll find this list on the homepage:
• Income tax cut for 30m people • Benefits capped • An in/out EU referendum in 2017 • Getting immigration under control • The deficit eliminated • Strong and stable leadership
Today, David Cameron is giving a speech outlining the central themes for the Conservative election campaign:
• Deficit • Jobs • Taxes • Home ownership • Education • Retirement
You will, I’m sure, quickly spot some rather significant differences. The biggest is that neither immigration nor an EU referendum are on the new Conservative list. Labour, meanwhile, is noting that the NHS isn’t there either."
The discussion on the thread sometimes blurs what should be considered as
1. illegal (e.g. conduct likely to promote or lead to violence - I think we all agree on that) 2.an unreasonable restriction on freedom of opinion (requiring people to like or dislike Islam, or requiring a Muslim to adopt current dress practice) 3.common courtesy (e.g. not going out of one's way to insult other people's religions) 4. simply making no sense (attacking Islam or Magna Carta because the bloke responsible allegedly didn't conform to modern ideas of sexual behaviour).
The borderlines are difficult (in particular the area of inciting hatred without specific incitement to violence) and may change over time but the general principle seems clear enough. Many of the proposals put forward by Socrates and Cyclefree trip over the third one, as Richard N's post yesterday pointed out.
Nick, common courtesy is not heading into a mosque wearing a Charlie Hebdo T-shirt, or a synagogue waving a palestinian flag or burning poppies on remembrance day, or turning up at a funeral to make a political point.
But scrutiny and satire of ideas are very very important, be they Islam, Christianitythe Tories, Labour, science, evolution, creationism or w/e.
The million copies of Hebdo will sell out very very fast in France, I'd buy one if I was able to.
David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign, saying they will be the deficit, jobs, taxes, education, housing and retirement.
Source: The Times
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 4m4 minutes ago Tories will take public spending back to 2002 levels. "The world did not fall in then and it won't now", says David Cameron #GE2015
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
I thought that too. What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt. It seems that around the early 14th century scientific thinking in the Islamic world just stopped, almost as if there was a collective decision that enough knowledge had been gained and it was time to do something else.
It happens from time to time, post Roman society for instance ?
Well, on art, you could start by visiting the V and A (and make sure you don't miss the carpets, which are just 'some carpets' in the sense that Michaelangelo just painted 'some pictures'), or consider the Taj Mahal, or Isfahan.
On science it's hard to know where to start, but basically for hundreds of years Arabic scientists and mathematicians were the biz.
On literature, the fact that you can't think of any is because you haven't bothered to find out about it.
etc etc
A carpet's a carpet. proper art ain't in the V and A.
Taj Mahal - is ok but again a decorative rather than artistic achievement. Seeing it in the flesh adds strikingly little to seeing a photograph of it.
Science and maths are highly culture-independent. the Sumerians, babylon, egypt, Greece all equally good at maths.
Literature - I can, with difficulty, read classical Arabic. So I've bothered a bit more than you think.
But as I say this is all whataboutery anyway. If muslims discovered the circulation of the blood and wrote bloody Hamlet that hasd a limited bearing on their present-day propensity to go about murdering people.
I am perfectly aware of the argument. I just disagree with it.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
That's just silly. They didn't have those rights at the time, we have since decided people should have those rights, and it would be rightly be wrong to treat people in that way now.
If you follow your line of reasoning, in the next century it might well be by common consent decided that people have the right to end their life when they see fit, scientifically advances might well cause the view that abortion, is immoral under any circumstance, and certainly under current time limits, and fetuses are accorded the relevant rights. Would we suddenly all become wicked people because people in the future had decided the world looked different for them to how it looks for us today?
I'm not arguing that these things are wrong because of what's currently legal. I'm arguing they're wrong because I feel that the arguments that they are wrong are overwhelmingly stronger than those that they're not wrong. It happens to be the case that this century is more moral than the 18th, but that forward progression is not inevitable. It's possible that the next century may be a more moral, or a less moral one than we have now.
It therefore follows there are things you think of as "right" now, which future generations will think of as "wrong", since they will be (in your terms) more moral than you are. It is therefore a logical nonsense to say that somethings are universally right and wrong.
One might also ask what gives the western world the trump card on what is moral.
No, they won't be, in my terms more moral than I am. If the future turns out to be a fascist hell-hole where it's considered moral to be beat up black people on the streets, it will be less moral. Beating up black people on account of their skin colour isn't only immoral because we happen to think it at the time. It's immoral because the argument that people should not have to undergo persecution because of something out of their control is highly compelling. The immorality of that does not change as the degree of racial tolerance goes up and down.
I also don't think the Western world holds the trump card on what's moral. Something like the late reign of Ashoka over the Maurya Empire was probably more moral than Europe at the time.
Interesting comments on CNBC about the absence of any American leaders in Paris yesterday. Clearly a major gaffe according to their commentators and I tend to agree.
@Richard_Nabavi You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
What? Christianity became mainstream in Britain in the days of the Roman occupation and after the Germanic "invasion" was dominant certainly by about 700AD. If Christianity set back medical knowledge by thousands of years that would mean that it was put back to the level it was in the early Bronze Age, which is of course complete nonsense.
The borderlines are difficult (in particular the area of inciting hatred without specific incitement to violence) and may change over time...
Is that not itself the problem? Incitement to hatred cannot and should not be a crime. A thought crime in the UK! Sure, incitement to commit an act of violence ought to be a crime - that's different as it directly precipitates harm against another. But incitement to think in a certain way? FFS. Our laws need to be seriously liberalised. ALL our thought crime and lack of free speech laws should be repealed.
Not to mention the Alhambra Palace or Istanbul almost in its entirety! Izzy just isn't an art lover
When you say Istanbul, do you include Hagia Sophia?
You wouldn't want to do that, its a Greek Orthodox Basilica, commanded by Justinian, the Byzantine Emperor, who was a Christian. It only became a mosque much later.
Interesting comments on CNBC about the absence of any American leaders in Paris yesterday. Clearly a major gaffe according to their commentators and I tend to agree.
Eric Holder was there, wasn't he? There is a legitimate argument that Obama should have been there but it's wrong to say there weren't any American leaders there.
In the past week and a bit on here, one poster called Muslim ragheads
You yourself in the immediate aftermath of the Paris shootings referred to the Prophet Mohammed as a Paedophile/Child Molester, which put you in the stellar company of the EDL and an assistant to a Tory MP.
Even if that claim is true, and some doubt it, perhaps you can direct a post of yours criticising the 33 year old King John marrying a 12 year old, five centuries after Mohammed died?
If King John had sex with her at 12 years old, he was indeed a paedophile and child molester.
Happy?
Maybe not under the customs of the time, though. I don't see the point of trying to apply modern thinking to figures from the ancient past. "Your ancestors were worse than our ancestors" is just childish. They were all blood-drenched debauched bastards [by modern standards].
Ever heard of Magna Carta. Maybe we should toss it in the bin because John was a "paedo"...
To be fair, it wasn't really his idea, and he really didn't want it!
The point is against Socrates I'm afraid. Are we to ignore Islam's huge contributions to art, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, trade, etc and instead fixate on the life of Mohammed (judged by 21st Century standards) as some kind of proof of Islam's inherent wickedness?
Well I did a degree in literature and I'm also unaware of much Islamic literature. As far as I am aware there is the Kerrang, there is Omar Khayyam, there is the 1,001 Nights, and that's about your lot. That's a pretty thin canon for fourteen hundred years - there's more extant western literature than that in any fourteen-year period of western writing.
Of course this is probably because Islam is complete and there's nothing more to be said, unless you'd like to be killed for improving on Mohammed, which must stifle the creative juices a bit.
Art, well, figurative art also gets you killed in Islam, so it's really only the carpets and the tiles. Nice though some might be in your toilet (I'm talking about the tiles here mainly), I don't think there's such a thing as a legendary carpet weaver, or any sort of Islamic Velazquez/Topps Tiles visionary layer of floors.
Music, nope, I'm coming up empty again. AFAIK it is, as also in synagogues, largely tuneless Middle Eastern wailing.
I'm sure I've missed something here, so who would the top ten Islamic authors - taking say one or two per century - and likewise who'd be the top ten tilers? Who are the giants?
@Richard_Nabavi You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
What? Christianity became mainstream in Britain in the days of the Roman occupation and after the Germanic "invasion" was dominant certainly by about 700AD. If Christianity set back medical knowledge by thousands of years that would mean that it was put back to the level it was in the early Bronze Age, which is of course complete nonsense.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about a collapse in literacy, population, and living standards (including medical knowledge). Gibbon did blame Christianity for the Empire's fall, but I don't think his judgement was fair.
Not to mention the Alhambra Palace or Istanbul almost in its entirety! Izzy just isn't an art lover
When you say Istanbul, do you include Hagia Sophia?
You wouldn't want to do that, its a Greek Orthodox Basilica, commanded by Justinian, the Byzantine Emperor, who was a Christian. It only became a mosque much later.
Thank you for springing my Roger-trap before he fell into it, which I am certain he would have done.
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
I thought that too. What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt. It seems that around the early 14th century scientific thinking in the Islamic world just stopped, almost as if there was a collective decision that enough knowledge had been gained and it was time to do something else.
"What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt."
For the same reason they came to a juddering halt in the Chinese empire at a similar time: extremism. (Political in the case of China, religious in the case of Islam.)
Interesting comments on CNBC about the absence of any American leaders in Paris yesterday. Clearly a major gaffe according to their commentators and I tend to agree.
Eric Holder was there, wasn't he? There is a legitimate argument that Obama should have been there but it's wrong to say there weren't any American leaders there.
@HurstLlama Knowledge of anesthesia and antibiotics became "witchcraft", only fasting and prayer were acceptable (along with basic orthopedic stuff) Did you know that our ancestors could trepan a skull with flint tools and the patient often survived?
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
I thought that too. What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt. It seems that around the early 14th century scientific thinking in the Islamic world just stopped, almost as if there was a collective decision that enough knowledge had been gained and it was time to do something else.
The Mongol invasions of 1220-1300 were absolutely devastating for the Islamic world. The populations of Samarkand, Baghdad, Bukhara, Balkh, Herat, Merv, all great centres of science and knowledge, were obliterated. Living standards plummeted. The Crusades, which generate so much angst today, were pinpricks by comparison.
That said, there were still great Islamic civilisations in the future. At their height, the Ottoman and Persian Empires were pretty impressive.
RN, "On science it's hard to know where to start, but basically for hundreds of years Arabic scientists and mathematicians were the biz."
Of course, that is correct. But, it raises a very difficult question.
How did a scientifically much more advanced culture (the Islamic or Arabic culture at 1000 AD) decline so dramatically and become so backwards ?
How does a scientifically more advanced country fall behind -- why is the lead not immutable, why does it not grow from strength to strength ?
Of course, Germany in 1933 was more scientifically advanced than the US, but now the positions are reversed.
As always, it is a lack of toleration of innovation and the confusion of scientific practices with religious or political dogma that destroys a scientifically more advanced country.
That is why there has only been one Muslim Nobel Laureate in science.
@Richard_Nabavi You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
What? Christianity became mainstream in Britain in the days of the Roman occupation and after the Germanic "invasion" was dominant certainly by about 700AD. If Christianity set back medical knowledge by thousands of years that would mean that it was put back to the level it was in the early Bronze Age, which is of course complete nonsense.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about a collapse in literacy, population, and living standards (including medical knowledge). Gibbon did blame Christianity for the Empire's fall, but I don't think his judgement was fair.
"As always, it is a lack of toleration of innovation and the confusion of scientific practices with religious or political dogma that destroys a scientifically more advanced country."
Indeed -- and one should not think the US is forever immune to this either.
@Richard_Nabavi You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
What? Christianity became mainstream in Britain in the days of the Roman occupation and after the Germanic "invasion" was dominant certainly by about 700AD. If Christianity set back medical knowledge by thousands of years that would mean that it was put back to the level it was in the early Bronze Age, which is of course complete nonsense.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about a collapse in literacy, population, and living standards (including medical knowledge). Gibbon did blame Christianity for the Empire's fall, but I don't think his judgement was fair.
Rome fell because it became decadent. Like most empires they're great on the way up, but once everything is conquered what do you do all day? The Mongols conquered all of China and way out west too. But once the fighting was over over they discovered that all they were good at was fighting. Their empire lasted only a few decades. The hardest thing of all for a man, a country, an empire, a company is to retain the hunger once the initial objectives are attained. Rome just got bored and descended into an orgy of sex, vomiting, more sex, games, more sex, more drinking and eating, more vomiting and flatulence. A serious threat from the east would have kept them going I reckon.
"... Of course this is probably because Islam is complete and there's nothing more to be said"
Mr. Bond might I think provide an answer to my question of why scientific thought in the Muslim world suddenly stopped. Yet for hundreds of years science and mathematics flourished under Islam. So it is reasonable to suggest that something happened to get to the Islam is complete state of mind. I wonder what.
@HurstLlama Knowledge of anesthesia and antibiotics became "witchcraft", only fasting and prayer were acceptable (along with basic orthopedic stuff) Did you know that our ancestors could trepan a skull with flint tools and the patient often survived?
Medieval Christian physicians followed the medical teachings of the ancient world, which included a good deal of mumbo jumbo (from our point of view) in their treatments. Astrology (both in the middle ages and the ancient world) was considered very important to medicine. Good medieval physicians actually had quite a useful store of medical knowledge, when it came to delivering children, setting broken bones, treating burns, basic surgery, but of course they knew nothing about germ theory.
No, they won't be, in my terms more moral than I am. If the future turns out to be a fascist hell-hole where it's considered moral to be beat up black people on the streets, it will be less moral. Beating up black people on account of their skin colour isn't only immoral because we happen to think it at the time. It's immoral because the argument that people should not have to undergo persecution because of something out of their control is highly compelling. The immorality of that does not change as the degree of racial tolerance goes up and down.
I also don't think the Western world holds the trump card on what's moral. Something like the late reign of Ashoka over the Maurya Empire was probably more moral than Europe at the time.
... and if we discover in future scientific advances that the foetus has consciousness and feeling from 10 weeks, possibly a century further on we are able to determine that being or some form of consciousness exists from conception. That might be considered magic to today's scientists, but so would doppler ultrasound scans that we use to look at fetuses today to a 17th century scientist. Where does that leave us on abortion now.
In 500 years time, still closer than the times of the prophet to us, we might gain scientific evidence for an afterlife of some sort, we might then feel it had been completely immoral to keep people alive on ventilators, or with a poor quality of life when they could be allowed to move on to their next life painlessly....
I am no fan of moral relativism, but absolute moral correct for all time is bunk, and arrogant bunk at that, you look at morals now and think what looks right to you, your perspective is a snapshot in time, people looking from other places in time will have a different view, you can't say with any justification your view is any better than theirs.
Comments
So it seems unfair to judge a man on current accepted norms.
Would you judge say Sir Winston Churchill as a homophobe because under his government they chemically castrated homosexuals?
As a resident of leafy Hampstead how do appraise the chances of Maajid Nawas in the constituency. Is there any value in the market?
Ed Miliband: can Labour win with such a liability leader? It is very hard to see how wavering voters contemplating a Govt of Ed will then place a tick for a candidate that gives us a Govt of Ed. My hope is that this decision in the ballot booth will shave off a few % from Labour taking them into 28% or lower.
http://order-order.com/2015/01/11/david-the-jews-ward-pays-tribute-to-paris-victims/
How come Lib Dems think he is a fit and proper person?
I was going to make that point!
"Tories are lower than vermin"
"Tories are all soulless bastards"
"Tories are evil"
To be consistent, those should be illegal. I see no difference expressing political over religious hatred - they are both choices.
Or, alternatively, we could do as you say and only ban the ones encouraging violence.
You can also apply this to the present day. Many people in Muslim, and in more traditional Christian, countries no doubt think our position on abortion is abhorrent. They probably also think the way we treat the elderly is appalling. I'm not sure things are quite as absolute as you imply.
The Lib Dems count David Alton among their Parliamentarians, a man who, 20 years ago, came very close to making it illegal to own copies of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Schindler's List' and 'The Godfather' in your home.
"Maybe we should toss [Magna Carta] in the bin because John was a "paedo"..."
The NeoConservatives have been doing a perfectly good job of binning it -- along with the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty of Westphalia -- without any 'pedo excuse'!
If those insults were banned it would result in a massive reduction on the PB servers, or do you propose that only lies and smears against the Tories be banned?
Under canon law marriage was valid from the age of 12, how do we know this ? Because Edmund Tutor was her second husband, her first being John de la Pole, who she was married to as an infant and was allowed to set aside because she was (considerably) under 12 years, also no future king would be stupid enough to marry someone under conditions that would give a legal challenge to the legitimacy of his heirs, especially as it was just before of the War of the Roses and the atmosphere was deadly.
According to the law of the times it was completely legal and above board. Marriage was legal from 12 years old for a Tudor girl. Average life expectancy was under 35 years.
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044
http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/01/08/blowback-paris-terror-suspect-radicalized-by-outrage-over-american-torture-and-invasion-of-iraq/
"All [X] are lower than vermin, all [X] are thieves and pedos, all [X] should be rounded up and killed, starting with [Mr.X] of [Xtown], WHO'S WITH ME?!" should, unquestionably, not be legal to say or write.
The challenge, of course, is in legislation, lawyers and judges that are best able to define and decide exactly where a statement of the first kind becomes more like the second.
Back to the main point of your argument: I seem to recall that, in fact, Mr C was always more popular than Mr Miliband, well before the Labour/SNP crossover which did not take place till about indyref time (I assume you mean Westminster VI). You might want to check that, as it would imply that these two phenomena are [edit: not necessarily] directly related in a causal sense?
The second is incitement - And is clearly illegal.
We have had laws about this stuff for a while.
I would have thought that "behead those who insult islam" would clearly be incitement.
Was the brutal treatment of slaves in the 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations morally acceptable merely because it was accepted as such at the time? No. Were the pogroms against Jews in the middle ages morally accepted because it was accepted as such at the time? No. If something causes suffering and/or deprives them of their rights it is wrong, no matter what the majority view was in that particularly society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwz6B8BFkb4
And there's the nub, Indigo -- according to the law of his time and place, so was the Prophet Mohammed.
Thomas Jefferson uttered one of the most quintessentially statements ever -- it matters not whether my neighbour believes there's one god, or twenty -- but he was still a man who owned slaves (and slept with the female ones). According to the law of the times it was completely legal and above board.
Read more: http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cheltenham-MP-Martin-Horwood-pens-cartoon-Echo/story-25838165-detail/story.html#ixzz3ObYblYR2
2. To argue that Mohammed did some very immoral things and that he should thus not be followed as a moral leader.
I would have too, unquestionably, but unfortunately the police would rather arrest tourists taking photographs of double-decker buses or drunkards calling police horses gay (both 100% true cases).
By the way Nick, I'm not sure if I've asked you this before but if Labour gets and enacts its London 3-Bed Semi tax, do you agree that Labour MPs should pay it out of their own pockets and not expense it?
If you follow your line of reasoning, in the next century it might well be by common consent decided that people have the right to end their life when they see fit, scientifically advances might well cause the view that abortion, is immoral under any circumstance, and certainly under current time limits, and fetuses are accorded the relevant rights. Would we suddenly all become wicked people because people in the future had decided the world looked different for them to how it looks for us today?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100250831/laws-against-inciting-hatred-funny-how-an-islamist-hate-preacher-is-never-prosecuted/
"Comments are closed" ^_~
On science it's hard to know where to start, but basically for hundreds of years Arabic scientists and mathematicians were the biz.
On literature, the fact that you can't think of any is because you haven't bothered to find out about it.
etc etc
1. illegal (e.g. conduct likely to promote or lead to violence - I think we all agree on that)
2.an unreasonable restriction on freedom of opinion (requiring people to like or dislike Islam, or requiring a Muslim to adopt current dress practice)
3.common courtesy (e.g. not going out of one's way to insult other people's religions)
4. simply making no sense (attacking Islam or Magna Carta because the bloke responsible allegedly didn't conform to modern ideas of sexual behaviour).
The borderlines are difficult (in particular the area of inciting hatred without specific incitement to violence) and may change over time but the general principle seems clear enough. Many of the proposals put forward by Socrates and Cyclefree trip over the third one, as Richard N's post yesterday pointed out.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/lincoln/
You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
In your four step system, do you agree that these comments should be banned then?
"Cut off their heads and fingers."
"Punishments have been prepared [for Muslims]. They'll be burnt and beaten."
"Go to war with them Moslems. Deal with them properly. God's on our side."
One might also ask what gives the western world the trump card on what is moral.
Not to mention the Alhambra Palace or Istanbul almost in its entirety! Izzy just isn't an art lover
"Just what are the Conservatives’ election priorities? If you go to the Conservatives’ website, you’ll find this list on the homepage:
• Income tax cut for 30m people
• Benefits capped
• An in/out EU referendum in 2017
• Getting immigration under control
• The deficit eliminated
• Strong and stable leadership
Today, David Cameron is giving a speech outlining the central themes for the Conservative election campaign:
• Deficit
• Jobs
• Taxes
• Home ownership
• Education
• Retirement
You will, I’m sure, quickly spot some rather significant differences. The biggest is that neither immigration nor an EU referendum are on the new Conservative list. Labour, meanwhile, is noting that the NHS isn’t there either."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11339635/David-Cameron-has-stopped-trying-to-wrestle-the-Ukip-pig.html
But scrutiny and satire of ideas are very very important, be they Islam, Christianitythe Tories, Labour, science, evolution, creationism or w/e.
The million copies of Hebdo will sell out very very fast in France, I'd buy one if I was able to.
David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign
David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign, saying they will be the deficit, jobs, taxes, education, housing and retirement.
Source: The Times
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 4m4 minutes ago
Tories will take public spending back to 2002 levels. "The world did not fall in then and it won't now", says David Cameron #GE2015
Taj Mahal - is ok but again a decorative rather than artistic achievement. Seeing it in the flesh adds strikingly little to seeing a photograph of it.
Science and maths are highly culture-independent. the Sumerians, babylon, egypt, Greece all equally good at maths.
Literature - I can, with difficulty, read classical Arabic. So I've bothered a bit more than you think.
But as I say this is all whataboutery anyway. If muslims discovered the circulation of the blood and wrote bloody Hamlet that hasd a limited bearing on their present-day propensity to go about murdering people.
I also don't think the Western world holds the trump card on what's moral. Something like the late reign of Ashoka over the Maurya Empire was probably more moral than Europe at the time.
Of course this is probably because Islam is complete and there's nothing more to be said, unless you'd like to be killed for improving on Mohammed, which must stifle the creative juices a bit.
Art, well, figurative art also gets you killed in Islam, so it's really only the carpets and the tiles. Nice though some might be in your toilet (I'm talking about the tiles here mainly), I don't think there's such a thing as a legendary carpet weaver, or any sort of Islamic Velazquez/Topps Tiles visionary layer of floors.
Music, nope, I'm coming up empty again. AFAIK it is, as also in synagogues, largely tuneless Middle Eastern wailing.
I'm sure I've missed something here, so who would the top ten Islamic authors - taking say one or two per century - and likewise who'd be the top ten tilers? Who are the giants?
http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
It's an opinion piece with which one can disagree but it's not obviously unsustainable.
For the same reason they came to a juddering halt in the Chinese empire at a similar time: extremism. (Political in the case of China, religious in the case of Islam.)
Knowledge of anesthesia and antibiotics became "witchcraft", only fasting and prayer were acceptable (along with basic orthopedic stuff)
Did you know that our ancestors could trepan a skull with flint tools and the patient often survived?
Yes I probably would have included the Hagia Sophia if I'd thought about it. Suppose you are going to tell me it was Christian? It's possible
That said, there were still great Islamic civilisations in the future. At their height, the Ottoman and Persian Empires were pretty impressive.
Of course, that is correct. But, it raises a very difficult question.
How did a scientifically much more advanced culture (the Islamic or Arabic culture at 1000 AD) decline so dramatically and become so backwards ?
How does a scientifically more advanced country fall behind -- why is the lead not immutable, why does it not grow from strength to strength ?
Of course, Germany in 1933 was more scientifically advanced than the US, but now the positions are reversed.
As always, it is a lack of toleration of innovation and the confusion of scientific practices with religious or political dogma that destroys a scientifically more advanced country.
That is why there has only been one Muslim Nobel Laureate in science.
Two Northampton councillors defect from Labour to the Conservatives
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2015/01/two-northampton-councillors-defect-from-labour-to-the-conservatives.html
Indeed -- and one should not think the US is forever immune to this either.
Mr. Bond might I think provide an answer to my question of why scientific thought in the Muslim world suddenly stopped. Yet for hundreds of years science and mathematics flourished under Islam. So it is reasonable to suggest that something happened to get to the Islam is complete state of mind. I wonder what.
In 500 years time, still closer than the times of the prophet to us, we might gain scientific evidence for an afterlife of some sort, we might then feel it had been completely immoral to keep people alive on ventilators, or with a poor quality of life when they could be allowed to move on to their next life painlessly....
I am no fan of moral relativism, but absolute moral correct for all time is bunk, and arrogant bunk at that, you look at morals now and think what looks right to you, your perspective is a snapshot in time, people looking from other places in time will have a different view, you can't say with any justification your view is any better than theirs.