On 11 May 2002 at 17:57, David Buchanan wrote:
> SAM SAID:
> According to one biography I have read of Fortuyn, "He wanted to halt
> immigration from Muslim countries because he feared that Muslims would
> erode the country's tolerance of homosexuals."
> DMB SAYS:
> Typical right winger. Irrational, illogical and hypocritical. Think
> about it. Fortuyn's "idea" here is that intolerance is justifed to
> protect tolerance. He merely advocates one form of bigotry over
> another. And the so-called animal rights activist who killed that
> Dutch skinhead isn't any better.
Hi DMB and Sam ....and Joao.
I wrote something about the said thread, but dropped it (will only keep
the Joao notes at the end). However there is an issues that bothers me
greatly: The Algeria case where democracy allowed the fundamental
Muslims to (be able to) abolish democracy and there was a military
coup d'etat to prevent this. This wasn't - and still isn't democracy - but
somehow better than teocracy ....or ...David? Can't this be compared
to Fortuyn's cause? Wasn't that your idea Sam? To pre-empt a future
Netherlandic majority to "abolish" homosexuality ...and start changing
law in a "sharia" direction?
----------------
JOĆO responded:
> 1.
> Sometimes an idea (intellectual level) can transform the social
> level in a way that makes it "of less quality" and more static. The
> victory of the social level value would have been better (of higher
> quality). Right?
Hi Joao.
Wrong in my opinion! Ideas as intellectual patterns is problematic. For
example, the "idea" to introduce torture of prisoners isn't intellectual
value at all, but very much a social such. It may sound strange to call
this a value, but the general social "urge" is for the individuals to
conform, and from that point of view no treatment is too severe for
dissenters.
> Is it moral for an idea to kill a society, if it generates a brave
> new world with no ideas?
Kill a society? What exactly does that mean? That a country turning
totalitarian? That is what social value wants most of all, while it to
intellect means a "brave new world with no (intellectual) ideas").
> The idea that we are in a war against terror has transformed the
> social level, decreasing its quality and making it more static. Don't you
> agree?
The social LEVEL can't be transformed, it's as stable as the bed-rock
itself, but the idea that we are at war has shifted Western focus in a
more social direction. This shift may be called a decrease of quality as
it is a move to a lower static latch.
> 2.
> The income gap between the west and the rest of the world will keep
> threatening us. That is the main reason for the lack of stability and
> social peace in Europe, and for the growth of the far-right.
This may be valid, I personally doubt it. If there was a conclusion when
this was discussed I don't know.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST