Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen

I am not an ivy-leaguer by a long stretch. I went to a strictly 2nd-tier grad-program.

GT: I wanted to add a little halo to your nick. Guess didn`t work. Sorry. Btw, Your example fails, when Allah Mian is enabled (thru legislature) to voice his eternal condemnation of Ahmedis. There are irreconcilable differences on that score (i.e., Who is Muslim in the eyes of state to have first class benefits?) and there is a real danger that majority group will keep calling up Allah Mian recursively to bring the state more in line with the preamble of that fascism masked as ``democracy``. For example, it could go on like this:

1 - Ahmedis/Hindus/Atheists go out. (they are already second class citizens)
2 - Shias
3 - Barelvis

Re: # 126 by kaalchakra:

Kaal:

For your pleasure:

GT`s Iron Law of sorts: ``None``.

GT`s Theorem of Practical Certainty: 1. ``If one is alive today then he/she will die someday``.

Kaal, with your deep intellect, you are absolutely right in pointing out that it is the ``Practical`` which matters :) But do make my day with an answer to #122.

Hmmm, you are already making good progress toward an Iron Law, a Raw Law :)

GT, now, that you have embarrassed me by referring to my supposedly `deep` intellect, I must surrender. Catch you all my friends later :)

Re: # 129 by Raw_Dust

Yaar Raw:

You have this bad habit of always putting me in trouble. OK, I have to say it: Fascism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. So here is my confession:

I prefer (a) a non-fascist democracy, to (b) a benevolent dictatorship, to (c) a fascist democracy, to (d) a non fascist non-benevolent dictatorship, to (e) a fascist dictatorship.

(c) over (d) may sound strange; but that is because (c), I believe, can only be a short term phenomenon. I believe, stupidly perhaps, that most people in general and over time tend to be decent.

Re: # 127


This would I presume mean that you like to be hoist on your own petard. When was it you last said something and meant something else. -)

GT while talking about democracies, it will exist only in a society with good middle class burghers aware of their rights and responsibilities. So you`ve got to build up that class first. Otherwise democracy would be what the Magna Carta meant. Those of you who`ve read 1066 and all that will remember the following declarations.

1) That no one was to be put to death (Except the common people)
2) That everyone should be free (Except the common people)
3) That everyone should be of the same weight and measure throughout the realm (Except the common people)
skipping a few declarations that do not matter
4) That the Barons should not be tried except by a special Jury of other Barons who would understand.

Re: # 134

That should spell ``means`` instead of ``mean`` and other trivial inconsistencies in my non-ivy league post.

Re: # 134 by swarrier:

I am not sure about the cause-effect stuff, inspite of English history .... would you accept India as a counter-example? By the way, your point is forcefully made by Acemoglu and Robinson (if you are interested check out James Robinson`s page ar harvard).

Regards.

p.s. This discussion is getting a bit intellectual (boring). So I shall be taking a break, with the option of comming back.

He he, swarrier, thought would swing by here before closing for the day :)

In these few minutes, it`s no harm making some ``bold`` (read wacky) ``Iron-Laws-By-The-Dozen`` type arguments.

Democracy R.D. (democracy Raw-Dust variety) is an imperfect, flawed, unjust, unfair human system. For most God-Centered societies it is an irrelevant construct. It`s meaningless, and just not good enough. Only ``unbelievers`` would pursue it.

For democracy R.D., God has to actually know her own mind. She must be crystal clear: Thou must have Democracy R.D., and nothing else. Failing which, the Great Lady must keep Her mouth shut. Give people the brains, and let them figure out matters for themselves.

For God-centered societies, God who likes to speak vaguely in hushed tones, who loves muffling her speech, and who enjoys garbling Her tongue, has to send very urgent explanations down regularly, every few decades, if not every year, or keep visiting us not necessarily very interesting creatures (when she has galaxies to arrange and visit) in person from eternity minus to eternity plus.

A vague God is a very dangerous God as far as Democracy R.D. goes. Why God might want a demoacracy R.D. in place, itself, seems hard to figure out. After all somethings are right. Others wrong. And God if she is any good, ought to know which is which.

Put right things in place. Whack the wrong ones on their head. And be done forever. What`s all this creativity, independence business? Being wrong (which is defined as being away from what is right) is not creativity.

Personally, I believe, for God-centered societies, Democracy R.D. may not only be an ``imposible`` goal. It is most likely also a very wrong one. But hey, I am not God so my opinions don`t count. :)

There, GT Sahib! Don`t expect you or anyone else having any trouble destroying that argument methodically. Just threw it into the mix in case it appeals to anyone ! :)

Re: # 136
GT I used 1066 to inject some humour into the intellectual proceedings and ramblings but chaps will be chaps . India has another 150 years to go before the responsibility bit of democracy creeps in. It isn`t there yet.
By that time other nations may be well on their way on the downward slide.

Re: # 137
[Personally, I believe, for God-centered societies, Democracy R.D. may not only be an ``imposible`` goal. It is most likely also a very wrong one. But hey, I am not God so my opinions don`t count. :) ]

Actually it may be the only possible goal.

On the other hand for other societies it may be one of many to be used, modified, rejected ...... who knows.

you guys are being unreasonable to demcoracy.
suppose kaalchakra`s skin color on scale 1 to 10 (1 is white 10 is black) is at 2. would you consider him black or white? if you consider him black it is incorrect. but if you consider him white, that is not correct either. but considering him white is more correct than considering him black. correct thing would be to say he is not black.

say certain law is fair to 95% of the people but very unfair to 5% (although it does not kill them)...would you call it an unfair law? that would be unfair to call such a law unfair in general when it is fair to 95% of the population most of the time...also the 5% that is getting unfavorable treatment under this law might get favorable on under some other law dealing with a different issue but in the same system.

liberal democracy is fair to 80% of the people most of the time....unfair to 20% of the people sometimes but it is never unfair to 100% of the people all the time.

it is very unfair that I get gasoline at most expensive price in USA but it is also very unfair that although I pay same federal taxes as people in chicago, I got never see snow or humidity like they do.:-) (that is unfair to peopel in chicago)

you guys are being unreasonable to demcoracy.
suppose kaalchakra`s skin color on scale 1 to 10 (1 is white 10 is black) is at 2. would you consider him black or white? if you consider him black it is incorrect. but if you consider him white, that is not correct either. but considering him white is more correct than considering him black. correct thing would be to say he is not black.

say certain law is fair to 95% of the people but very unfair to 5% (although it does not kill them)...would you call it an unfair law? that would be unfair to call such a law unfair in general when it is fair to 95% of the population most of the time...also the 5% that is getting unfavorable treatment under this law might get favorable on under some other law dealing with a different issue but in the same system.

liberal democracy is fair to 80% of the people most of the time....unfair to 20% of the people sometimes but it is never unfair to 100% of the people all the time.

it is very unfair that I get gasoline at most expensive price in USA but it is also very unfair that although I pay same federal taxes as people in chicago, I got never see snow or humidity like they do.:-) (that is unfair to peopel in chicago)

#141 by dullabhatti on April 19, 2007 6:06pm PT

on a gay scale from 1(not gay) to 10(elton john), kaalchakra is 11...

Re: # 141, dullabhatti

``say certain law is fair to 95% of the people but very unfair to 5% (although it does not kill them)...would you call it an unfair law? that would be unfair to call such a law unfair in general when it is fair to 95% of the population most of the time...also the 5% that is getting unfavorable treatment under this law might get favorable on under some other law dealing with a different issue but in the same system.

liberal democracy is fair to 80% of the people most of the time....unfair to 20% of the people sometimes but it is never unfair to 100% of the people all the time.``

Apply this hypo(thesis) to Indian democracy (of course including Gujrat) and live peacefully!

Samar

#137
``Democracy R.D. (democracy Raw-Dust variety) is an imperfect, flawed, unjust, unfair human system. For most God-Centered societies it is an irrelevant construct. It`s meaningless, and just not good enough. Only ``unbelievers`` would pursue it. ``

The U.S founding fathers managed to make this construct relevant in their God-Centered society in the eighteenth century:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=182

Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics