SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
cosmologist
Posts: 640
Joined: January 24th, 2005, 8:08 am

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 5:46 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenNo, it doesn't. Y was pointing out an absurd consequence of the stated rationale for Z's outrage at dhimmitude under an Islamic state. The appropriate thing for Z to have done would have been either to withdraw his expression of outrage at dhimmitude completely, or at least to acknowledge that his statement of his reasons for it was incomplete and to amend it. Or to have directed his outrage also at the US government ...The appropriate thing for you to have done would have been to give Z the opportunity to clarify or revise his statement, or perhaps to have offered your own clarification. Y only noted that Z's "blameworthy" aspects of dhimmitude were shared by the US government: do you deny that the US government requires payment of taxes and obedience to laws? If not, then you cannot reasonably complain about Y noting that the US government does do these things. If your complaint is only that these things are not what makes dhimmitude bad, then your quarrel would seem to be with Z, who made that implication; Y never made such an implication -- you can check the record.We ,NOW, don't bother much about your obscene aruguments. Just keep your fucking mouth shut. You are risking your career by indulging in this shameless activity ,which can be aptly described as 'Justification of Jihad'.cheers
Last edited by cosmologist on November 1st, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
mencey
Posts: 638
Joined: August 12th, 2002, 11:02 am

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 10:12 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenNo, it doesn't. Y was pointing out an absurd consequence of the stated rationale for Z's outrage at dhimmitude under an Islamic state. The appropriate thing for Z to have done would have been either to withdraw his expression of outrage at dhimmitude completely, or at least to acknowledge that his statement of his reasons for it was incomplete and to amend it. Or to have directed his outrage also at the US government ...The appropriate thing for you to have done would have been to give Z the opportunity to clarify or revise his statement, or perhaps to have offered your own clarification. Y only noted that Z's "blameworthy" aspects of dhimmitude were shared by the US government: do you deny that the US government requires payment of taxes and obedience to laws? If not, then you cannot reasonably complain about Y noting that the US government does do these things. If your complaint is only that these things are not what makes dhimmitude bad, then your quarrel would seem to be with Z, who made that implication; Y never made such an implication -- you can check the record.I see your point but I do not totally agree with that. The statement of Z " Dhimminitude is bad because ........." is appropriate but incomplete. The statment of Y is brilliant from a rethoric point of view but at the same time is a fallacy because implies that compliance to US law can be compare to compliance to Islamic law. It is debatable, but from my point of view is like comparing apples to oranges. US law is based on the principle that all men are equal in front of law, Islamic law is based on the principle that men are not equal in front of law (either by sex or religion). Therefore cannot be compared. From a "logic" point of view, there may be another fallacy on Y, and is that it tried to define the whole by a characteristic of the partSub conjunt A: "Dhimmitude is bad because paying taxes and obedience to law"Conjut B: DhimmitudeA belong to B but B is not totally included in A (I do not know if "conjunt", "subconjunt", "belong" and "included" are the right words but I am sure you as a quant knows how I mean it)
Last edited by mencey on November 1st, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 2:58 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: cosmologistWe ,NOW, don't bother much about your obscene aruguments. Just keep your fucking mouth shut. You are risking your career by indulging in this shameless activity ,which can be aptly described as 'Justification of Jihad'.Brilliant post, cosmo. You really expressed quite clearly the full range of your opinion on just about every matter imaginable, so there's really no reason for you to post anything else; I can only think that any further comments from you would only serve to muddy the clarity of your perspective as expressed with this post.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 3:53 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyI see your point but I do not totally agree with that. The statement of Z " Dhimminitude is bad because ........." is appropriate but incomplete. The statment of Y is brilliant from a rethoric point of view but at the same time is a fallacy because implies that compliance to US law can be compare to compliance to Islamic law. It is debatable, but from my point of view is like comparing apples to oranges. US law is based on the principle that all men are equal in front of law, Islamic law is based on the principle that men are not equal in front of law (either by sex or religion). Therefore cannot be compared.I expect that there is some difference in what you mean when you write "cannot be compared" and what I take it to mean. To me, any two things can be compared; the usefulness of doing so, however, might be limited in many cases. In the case under consideration, Z had rather thoughtlessly pointed out with outrage two aspects of dhimmitude that were also shared by virtually every other government system. Y's comment highlights this fact, and it can be seen as eliciting a clarification of Z's position: it would serve no interest other than a dishonest one to have people outraged at dhimmitude because it requires obedience to laws and payment of taxes, but this is precisely what Z's comment directed.I must disagree with you, however, on the basis of US law. It is only under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (enacted in the middle of the 19th century), I believe, that the concept of "equal protection of the laws" is introduced to US law. Recall that slavery was allowed until the 1860s and racial discrimination until at least 1954 in the US. There are statements about all men being created equal in the American Declaration of Independence, but this document, and particularly this phrase from the document, has no legal weight in US law, and indeed it was not regarded as any sort of impediment to enslaving Africans nor exterminating Native Americans (about the latter of which, further reading of the Declaration of Independence gives a clearer notion of what really was going on ...).By and large, there are two bases for US law, at least as far as they are relevant to a comparison with the sharia of Islamic law: supremecy of individual rights over government authority; and a general democratic process for creating and implementing laws. While it might, at first glance, seem that the immutable, divine nature claimed for Islamic law stands in stark contrast to US law, this is not entirely so, because there is no general statement in US law of what are the "individual rights" that governments must not abridge. A few of them are directly stated, but the Constitution very clearly indicates that the statement of a few of them should not be construed to deny the existence of others. So, we have these supreme things, with no statement of what exactly they are or where exactly they come from; the main difference with sharia is that sharia explicitly states what its supreme rules are.The real difference comes into play with democracy. (I'm not familiar at all with sharia, but I think that, within the limits imposed by the many immutable, divinely given laws of sharia, democracy or at least government for the benefit of the people in general is preferred, which is not too different from US law.) "Democracy" is a very miss-used word these days: what it really is is government by the majority; but when it is used in the news it is generally meant to indicate a system of individual rights and justice in addition to some form of majority-determined elections. We commonly accept that democracy is "fair," or at least more "fair" than anything else, but it really is not inherently so: in a pure form, the majority could just decide to exterminate minorities and be fully compatible with democracy.The real difference, I think, is that in US law, everything is mutable, including the supposedly supreme "individual rights" that are recognized. I tend to think that this is far preferable -- I can't believe that at any time anyone had the ability to get everything exactly right, as supposedly Muhammed did -- but it does have its drawbacks.This said, the point not made by Z is important: sharia holds that there are (at least) two classes of people: the faithful, and infidels. And the faithful are assumed to do (or at least to try to do) everything right while the infidels are at most tolerated. This is clearly a raw deal for the infidels. US law at present does not have such a bifurcation, but it also has fewer ultimate guaranties of protection for minorities.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 3:59 pm

QuoteWe commonly accept that democracy is "fair," or at least more "fair" than anything else, but it really is not inherently so: in a pure form, the majority could just decide to exterminate minorities and be fully compatible with democracy.Plato believed that all Democracy degenerated into tyranny. Which is why, in the Federalist Papers, the authors took such great pains to describe the separation of powers, and why they were important to the creation of a Republican form of democratic government, which is what the US has.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:00 pm

I'm not familiar at all with sharia, but I think that, within the limits imposed by the many immutable, divinely given laws of sharia, democracy or at least government for the benefit of the people in general is preferred, which is not too different from US lawWhich is why there are so many thriving free elections in the Middle East.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:01 pm

US law, everything is mutableI am unclear on what you mean by this. Everything is mutable?
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:05 pm

So, we have these supreme things, with no statement of what exactly they are or where exactly they come from; the main difference with sharia is that sharia explicitly states what its supreme rules are.I think you've missed the history of Natural Law jurisprudence in the West: a tradition that is missing in Sharia.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonQuoteWe commonly accept that democracy is "fair," or at least more "fair" than anything else, but it really is not inherently so: in a pure form, the majority could just decide to exterminate minorities and be fully compatible with democracy.Plato believed that all Democracy degenerated into tyranny. Which is why, in the Federalist Papers, the authors took such great pains to describe the separation of powers, and why they were important to the creation of a Republican form of democratic government, which is what the US has.Plato believed in fascism.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:07 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonI'm not familiar at all with sharia, but I think that, within the limits imposed by the many immutable, divinely given laws of sharia, democracy or at least government for the benefit of the people in general is preferred, which is not too different from US lawWhich is why there are so many thriving free elections in the Middle East.Which is certainly why the top shia cleric in Iraq, with whom the Bush Administration typically declined to confer with, objected to the US-proposed election system mostly because it was not democratic enough.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:08 pm

Plato believed in fascism. There is considerable debate amongst scholars as to whether he quite literally believed this in the City of Man, or meant this as an allusion to a theological state. But, feel free to assert unconditionally without qualification. I assume, also, that your use of the Genetic Fallacy:"He's a fascist, so there is no reason to listen to anything he says"is on full display.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:08 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonSo, we have these supreme things, with no statement of what exactly they are or where exactly they come from; the main difference with sharia is that sharia explicitly states what its supreme rules are.I think you've missed the history of Natural Law jurisprudence in the West: a tradition that is missing in Sharia.I think you understand sharia even less well than I do.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:09 pm

Which is certainly why the top shia cleric in Iraq, with whom the Bush Administration typically declined to confer with, objected to the US-proposed election system mostly because it was not democratic enough. Talk is cheap in the Middle East, almost as cheap as the lives of their citizens whom they freely extinguish in their decrepit prisons. Where are the thriving democracies? They aren't hiding in the pickle jars are they?
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:10 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenQuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonSo, we have these supreme things, with no statement of what exactly they are or where exactly they come from; the main difference with sharia is that sharia explicitly states what its supreme rules are.I think you've missed the history of Natural Law jurisprudence in the West: a tradition that is missing in Sharia.I think you understand sharia even less well than I do.Blame Harold J. Berman
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

November 2nd, 2006, 4:16 pm

QuoteLogic is the armory of reason, furnished with all offensive and defensive weapons. These are syllogisms, long swords; enthymemes, short daggers; dilemmas, two-edged swords that cut on both sides; sorites, chain-shot. And, for the defensive, distinctions, which are shields; retortions, which are targets with a pike in the midst of them, both to defend and oppose.Thomas Fuller (1608-61) "The General Artist"
Last edited by Hamilton on November 1st, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On