Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020 • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#91

Post by LudwigNagasena » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 9:48 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #85

AdrianB1 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who was talking about Tate or "adequacy" of the second? It was just a list of examples of rights that don't exist outside USA, not about effectiveness, morality, adequacy etc. Want it or not, the world is mostly not free . Romanian law: Law 107 of 2006. UK: you can even find even lawyer's explanations for that prayer thing, with full details, just look for it. Please explain how most of European countries, for exampl…

I was talking about Tate because that's the first thing I found in Google and you didn't provide the proper context. Searching for Romanian Law 107 of 2006 brings up an anti-discrimination statute and an article from civic-nation.org that says[0]: >Anti-racism Act № 107/2006 (preceded by government decree № 31/2002) prohibits the operation of organizations of fascist, racist or xenophobic nature, participation in suc…

It's not clear, at least to me, what's your actual point. You try to argue that other countries besides the US also support free speech; and your argument is that... it's actually good that they don't support free speech. I am a bit confused.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#92

Post by za3faran » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 10:51 PM UTC

blhblah12345 wrote: post #10

za3faran wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The things that keep the west alive are abstract, unfathomable concepts to the Ummah. As a Muslim, this is so incorrect to the point of almost absurdity. Just because you have encountered one person who appeared to you that he did not understand or comprehend a certain topic you were explaining, does not mean that the rest of the Muslims are the same. I can point you to many many youtube channels (just as an exampl…

"One person" Like I said I've been in the islamic world for a decade. I've studied Arabic/Turkish music in Iran, Egypt, Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It's not like "I met one muslim". I have spent about 20 hours per week for the past decade teaching Syrian and Yemeni refugees in Istanbul and Ankara. Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation. Just one? As far as I can tell this only ex…

And I've lived there for longer, and I speak the language and I continue to know people and travel there frequently. My points still hold.

> Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation.

Western style democracy and secularism are contradictory with Islam. To us, it is not a measure of success or prosperity. On a side note, there aren't really any fully Islamic states today - practically all of them have remnants (or more active engagement) of Western colonization and influence. I'm sure you're aware of how things have been after the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#93

Post by za3faran » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 10:53 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #23

blhblah12345 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One person" Like I said I've been in the islamic world for a decade. I've studied Arabic/Turkish music in Iran, Egypt, Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It's not like "I met one muslim". I have spent about 20 hours per week for the past decade teaching Syrian and Yemeni refugees in Istanbul and Ankara. Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation. Just one? As far as I can tell this only ex…

I get your point but isn't there a built-in inconsistency in term "Islamic secular state"? I. E. Would a secular state by definition not be Islamic (or Christian etc)? Or do you mean a state with predominantly Islamic population that is democratic and secular?

You're correct that Western style democracy and secularism contradict Islam. We as Muslims don't look at those notions as measures of prosperity.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#94

Post by johnchristopher » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 10:57 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #81

starwind wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly a respect for the individual played a role. Thomas Hobbes argued for a strong monarch specifically to protect their subjects and their subjects’ property. Other philosophers like John Lock, David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill would expand on this and build the classically liberal tradition. But we also can’t underestimate the impact of: 1) abundant energy sources—initially wood and then coal that c…

6) There are several similar but different societies that shared a common ancestry (with the Romans and Greeks) This created an intense competition where the best ideas would survive. As trade grew so did the exchange of ideas in Europe. Different regimes had different views on intellectuals. Famously, Da Vinci and Voltaire had multiple patrons through their lives.

> This created an intense competition where the best ideas would survive.

Claiming they are best because they survive is survivorship bias.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#95

Post by m0ntag » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 10:58 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #72

m0ntag wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. Though I do not see how mixing the state with any religion would help in this regard. But sure, let's bash all authoritarianism to avoid hypocrisy :D

I don't see how "everyone is doing it" is your reading of "some rights are more of an exception than a rule". What is the "do" part that everyone does? Not having it? The history is that there were no rights, then in some places some rights appeared, that means some countries are more or less behind, but not "doing it".

I am a bit confused by your reply. The "everyone is doing it" is your own words in reference to brainwashing? My statement was that I agree that western countries are likewise authoritarian and have issues with freedom of it's citizens. Nevertheless, I don't see a theocratic government as a step in the right direction to say the least.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#96

Post by FreakLegion » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 11:01 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #9

blhblah12345 wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> His English is very good, but the concept of inalienable rights, freedom of speech, and freedom to yell at our politicians .. he was intellectually incapable of understanding this, his society had brainwashed him so thoroughly. I don’t think that’s a charitable or logical framing of his point of view. Unless you’re religious—which the American framers were—“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept. In the state…

> Unless you’re religious...“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept.

That's an odd claim to make so casually. This is something people can and have argued about for thousands of years, in both directions. One direction is: How can we have values in a world without god(s)? (See: Epicureanism, Kantian ethics, or any other system of secular morality). But the other, equally fair direction is: How can we have values in a world with god(s)? (See: The Euthyphro dilemma and broader problem of evil, the Epicurean paradox, or more recent historical and anthropological analyses of how religions and their institutions are formed and operate.)

I suppose you can play bad-faith semantic games with "inalienable", "right", or "inherent" as words here, but the long and short of it is that this isn't a settled issue. There are good arguments not only that religion is not needed as a foundation for rights, but that religion has not (historically) and cannot (philosophically) provide this foundation.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#97

Post by LAC-Tech » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 11:22 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79

LAC-Tech wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end of the Black Death occurred over 400 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

> end of the Black Death occurred over 400 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution “Right before” was hyperbole. The population, and in particular, labor effects, were nevertheless persistent. Western labor was anomalously expensive.

Why would you double down at this point?

Just admit you were completely wrong and move on. It's fine, I'm wrong a lot too.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#98

Post by AdrianB1 » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 11:48 PM UTC

m0ntag wrote: post #95

AdrianB1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how "everyone is doing it" is your reading of "some rights are more of an exception than a rule". What is the "do" part that everyone does? Not having it? The history is that there were no rights, then in some places some rights appeared, that means some countries are more or less behind, but not "doing it".

I am a bit confused by your reply. The "everyone is doing it" is your own words in reference to brainwashing? My statement was that I agree that western countries are likewise authoritarian and have issues with freedom of it's citizens. Nevertheless, I don't see a theocratic government as a step in the right direction to say the least.

My point is that Muslim countries, the religion or their theocracy (limited to only few countries, to be honest) is not the cause of the lack of freedom, you can see the lack of freedom and rights everywhere. The history of the Old World (Europe, Asia) is the cause, while USA made a positive change and huge leap forward with their revolution. Canada, Australia and New Zeeland inherited too much lack of freedom from UK, in my opinion, and that is visible from far and beyond. Also these countries are bragging with their democracy and liberalism, not Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#99

Post by rockinghigh » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 11:50 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #18

rockinghigh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're generalizing from a couple of conversations. The Arab Spring of 2010-2012 started because citizens in the Arab world wanted more freedoms. The idea that citizens in Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria are "intellectually incapable of understanding" the idea of freedom of speech is insulting.

"Unfathomable" is very different from "intellectually incapable of understanding". You're arguing against a straw-man of your own making.

I simply quoted the original commenter who used these words.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#100

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 17, 2023, 12:26 AM UTC

FreakLegion wrote: post #96

rayiner wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His English is very good, but the concept of inalienable rights, freedom of speech, and freedom to yell at our politicians .. he was intellectually incapable of understanding this, his society had brainwashed him so thoroughly. I don’t think that’s a charitable or logical framing of his point of view. Unless you’re religious—which the American framers were—“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept. In the state…

> Unless you’re religious...“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept. That's an odd claim to make so casually. This is something people can and have argued about for thousands of years, in both directions. One direction is: How can we have values in a world without god(s)? (See: Epicureanism, Kantian ethics, or any other system of secular morality). But the other, equally fair direction is: How can we have value…

I didn’t say “God” I said “religion.” “Secular” morality invariably reduces to a system of moral assertions that must be believed but cannot be empirically observed or proven true. To me, that’s just another way of saying “religion.”

For example, what’s Kantian ethics?

> It states that an action can only be moral if (i) it is motivated by a sense of duty and (ii) its maxim may be rationally willed a universal, objective law.

If I autopsy a dead body, am I going to find any evidence of those things in there? Can you empirically prove the categorical imperative?

Moreover, “secular morality” in practice is typically just the moral philosophy of the dominant religion with the supernatural elements removed. My dad isn’t a believer, but thinks choosing not to have children is immoral. Why? Maybe it’s because his parents were devout Muslims and having children is an important obligation in Islam. Similarly, it’s amusing to observe how many professed atheists really just believe in the Christian social gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel) without Jesus.

I’m not saying that’s bad. But you have to understand how deeply intertwined even seemingly secular western thought is with Christianity, and doesn’t easily translate to other parts of the world.