the __earthinc

A continuation of exchange between me and kaki bangku.

Point 1:

It wasn’t a disparaging remark at all because I am well aware that you are comfortable with upholding those labels. Merely an attempt to set out the different frames of reference that shape our differing opinions. Terasa kah?

Then your assumption is false. As false as your others assumptions. It’s just plain name calling, needless to say, unethical.

If some xenophobic calls you an extremist-Islamist-terrorist kafirphobe, regardless the faulty assumption of his, would you “terasa kah” too?

Rule is simple – do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If you respect others, others would respect you. If you start throwing mud at others, others would throw back mud at you. That’s one of the basics in morality. If we fail basic morality, let’s not talk about the higher morality, okay?

Point 2:

Notice that what I initially wrote didn’t make that assumption at all. If ever it was a fallacy, it would have been an appeal to emotions, but definitely nothing being assumed here. My argument for this is that a behavioral drift towards the lowest common denominator will be the undesirable effect of moral permissivity.

Yes you did make an assumption. Answer this question, whose moral and whose standard? Yours, I suppose?

See also my Point 10, where you contradicted yourself.

Point 3:

But, of course, you are free to disagree. I am merely reasoning out to persuade people to support my position for the establishment of a moral police, far from the Straw Man that you constructed: “You instead demand submission.“

It’s not a straw man. Rather, you have a short memory span. You wrote in your very first comment that started all this:

Allah Almighty says, “Let there be a community among you who call to the good, and enjoin the right, and forbid the wrong. They are the ones who have success.” (3:104)

That ayat sounds very much like an authorization for the suggestion by a kind and loving group of sincere Muslims who desire to carry out what is called “moral policing” to help bring more goodness to our community. How can you possibly justify labeling an action to “command the right and forbid the wrong” in accord with the Will of Allah an “intrusion of privacy”?

More on forced submission:

All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community.

Point 4:

Yes of course, if moral policing is not received favorably, I would not take it to the streets to “demand submission”. That’s merely a figment of your “imagination” of me (perhaps a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding Straw Man of me?).

As stated in Point 4, it’s not my imagination. Rather, it’s your forgetfulness. Just read your own words as quoted in Point 4.

And no. I don’t assume you as a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding. But if you imagine that other people imagine you as a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding, then one has to wonder why.

Whatever the reason might be, I maintain good faith in this exchange, as I try to maintain with any stranger I’d meet. I don’t judge a book by its cover. I can’t say the same thing for you.

Point 5:

In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent – “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”

Glad you agree!

I am quite hard to be offended with indecency. I’m sure it’s the opposite for you. So yes, stay at home and don’t go out.

Point 6:

Note my position as spelt out in my first entry:

Muslim groups within our community, when they observe a social/moral problem arising, have every right to suggest a plan of non-punitive moral policing. This must, of course, be done within the law of the community and with the consent of the government.

But you are missing the point. If you could have it your way, your law would reflect this:

You wrote that a person can’t do a particular action if that action offends your sensibility. If that’s the case, should the person be thrown in jail or his rights curtailed to satisfy your sensibility or your values? Should the person be punished just because he disagrees with your values?

Wouldn’t you agree so?

Also, I quote myself on the earlier reply on your “with the consent of the government” statement:

In history, some government consented genocide. But that doesn’t make it right, does it?

Regardless, talking about law, I don’t claim to be an expert. But tell me, which part of the law the allows those morality police to harass the non-Muslim American couple in a private space at Langkawi?

Point 7:

I don’t think it is intolerance, but rather a means of non-punitive social sanctions. This quote from my first entry will eliminate your straw man (again!):

If you go into someone’s home and spy on them then that might be called an invasion of privacy, but if someone is doing something wrong in public then if other people notice your wrong behavior and make a comment on it that could never be called an invasion of privacy. Keep your bad behavior out of public areas where people will see you and no one will bother you, but if you want to show an example of wrong behaviour in public you should expect to have someone command the right and forbid the wrong.

Since I first introduced the term “straw man”, you have fallen in love with it, haven’t you?

Well, I have another two terms you might like. It’s “selective reasoning” and “selective memory”. See Point 4. In fact, I shall reproduce your statement for the second time to prove that the “straw man” actually comes with thick red flesh through what you wrote yourself:

All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community.

Meanwhile, let’s not kid ourselves. Let’s be honest. Shakespeare wrote “what’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.

When Bush invaded Iraq, he called it the liberation of Iraq. Just like how liberation is an euphemism for invasion, “non-punitive social sanctions” is an euphemism for intolerance. Just call a spade as a spade.

I’m just more than a little curious, what kind of non-punitive social sanctions are you talking about? Harassment like what had happened to the American couple in Langkawi?

Point 8:

Yes indeed. Just like you’re under the assumption of libertarian universality.

Nope. I don’t assume libertarian universality. But you’ve just admitted that you assume that your conservative values assume universality, much in contradiction of all your state that you don’t assume.

Here’s an advice. Stop assuming.

Point 9:

My reasoning is that moral behavior has nothing to do with economic prosperity. That is why your statement below is non-sequitor:

[…]

You’re still imagining what I wrote. I didn’t say moral behavior has anything to do with economic prosperity. I said moral policing affects the economy. Please note the difference between the terms “moral behavior” and “moral policing.”

Quoting what I wrote, that you in turn quoted:

Attempt to unilaterally increase that standard and enforce it – like many religious conservatives – would cause the society to concentrate pitiful p[e]tty issues and not on education, economy, the environment and other important issues that push the society well-being higher [than] previously. That’s why, conservative religious societies are backward compared to the more liberal societ[ies].

Religious conservative societies are too busy controlling everybody’s life that in the end, most resources are given to religious institution to control people’s [life] and not too much left available to bring people out of poverty and make the world a better place.

Read it slowly this time. Don’t quote it and imagine what I wrote. Spend sometimes with your rebuttal. Really. If you’re late in replying, I won’t declare “hurm… nampaknya hujah moral policing aku tak mampu dijawab..” like you did.

Point 10:

Don’t you also know that moral permissivity is also part of the reason conservative Muslims don’t frequent city centres and beaches?

If the conservative Muslims frequenting the downtowns and the beaches meaning everybody has to adhere to their restrictive standard, I’d rather let everybody else frequenting downtowns and beaches and let the conservatives be.

This comes back to the point to what you said:

In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent – “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”

You agree to it; I agree to it. So, no disagreement there. End of story.