[MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION]
You cant call anything free will by your own definition.
The irony. Why don't you define it then? Hopefully, you'll actually provide one and not continue your standard gish gallop.
Indeed it is subjective. Circumcision is seen as abuse these days in some nations. Iceland banned it recently. However the vast majority of the world doesn't consider it abuse.
So you're saying abuse is subjective? How insightful!
Female circumcision is abuse. No if and buts. Male circumcision there is room for debate. But also, you once again can't even grasp the simplest of points. It's not the act of circumcision that has been banned. What is being taken away is the decision on carrying out the procedure on a child until they are old enough to consent for it themselves. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? To subject a child to an irreversible procedure without them giving informed consent is abuse.
Just because the vast majority have been indoctrinated doesn't mean it's justifiable. Here's a simple exercise, ask yourself if the said action increases suffering for the individual. There is a good place to start.
Are the population of North Korea justified in worshipping Kim Jong Un or are they victims?
The fact that you fail to grasp even the most obvious cases of abuse, reflects how vacuous your belief system is and how detached it is from the ground reality.
You have also ignored the blatant hypocrisy in your argument. Abuse is subjective yet Islam allows no scope for review and redefinition for what constitutes abuse.
A belief system that emanates from the most powerful entity that has ever existed exhibits a weaker understanding of Human nature than a bog standard, run of the mill Psychologist. And this is meant to be enlightening?
Not any but many. Its all about how you see it. And Depends on where the value leads the person to. Every Human being is different and responds differently to internalisation of values. Hence we have the concepts of re-socialization or anticipatory socialization in modern sociology which deal with this particular topic and how to counter it. It is a bit technical to discuss here but it should suffice to say that unless you take a case to case approach, you would never know the consequences of internalization of a particular value in human beings with varying personality types. And hence, many values taught could end up being abuse.
I would like to point out to the readers that you've actually not made a single substantive point.
But Islam's laws are not tailored to the individual. Are you now stating you have a better understanding of human nature than Allah?
Says who? I say the child should learn in the comfort of his house. Its better to not put pressure on a child since a very young age. Hence it is subjective.
Once again, you exhibit a total lack of understanding of the most basic of concepts. In the developed world, denying a child an education is against the law not the attendance at school. You are well within your limits to home school. Now if you neglect to this to the required standard then that constitutes abuse. As does restricted their social development.
The point being that Your entire approach to this discussion is flawed and you are approaching it with one fallacy after another. You seem to be too sure of what is abuse and what is not while at the same time you call everything else as "indoctrination" and leave no room for subjectivity. Classic case of ethoncentricism. Something that people keep falling for subconsciously all the time.
Sure, I'm the one follwoing one fallacy after another.
I do know what abuse is. Not a difficult concept at all to grasp. Reduce suffering and allow the individual to make their decisions devoid of duress. The fact that you chose to ignore basic suffering is reflective of your morality and of Islam. The most complete belief system can't even recognise abuse, whilst embarrassingly exhibiting a total lack of understaning of human nature? And we are suppose to believe this is eternal?
Let's explore your classic case of ethnocentrism. More than happy to address each and every point you bring up with regards to this.
I guess you're very aware of what you fall in to subconsciously? Because it certainly doesn't seem so from your posts.
Irrelevant. The abuse might stem from the systems placed in by the society. Again the society might not even see it as abuse. And hence, subjectivity.
Then the society is at fault and needs to held accountable, Genius! That's why most domestic human rights abuses occur under totalitarian regimes.
As per your and my values and norms. In some cultures it is seen as making a child competitive.
Nonsense and standard rationale to justify abuse. Abusing a child to make them competitive is not a justifiable rationale. But not surprising that you would hold such views as it is entirely consistent with what you have expressed previously.
I thought it was obvious from my post. The kid's personality is shaped by the environment he is put into. He is asked to beat others at studies and get the 1st rank. Perhaps he isn't so competitive by nature. And hence when you try to change this natural feature of his, it has consequences on his mental frame of mind.
Waffle. I can't believe I have to point this out but before just making random blanket statements you first have to define concepts like nature and as well as frame of mind. Little point throwing out terms when you refuse to define them.
That is abuse what you have stated. If you subject a child to emotional and psychological abuse in the hope it will improve their grades, that is abuse! Same as hitting a child to discipline them.
Why couldn't Allah or Muhammad understand this? It seems strange that despite having access to all the knowledge that has ever existed and unlimited power they couldn't between them understand human suffering or its long term consequences.
Whoa there, no need get so emotional about it.
I'm sorry if you feel me pointing out your absurd rationale and defence of abuse as being emotional. I'm sure I'll loose many hours of sleep over it.
