The Accidental Theologist

It’s a whole new generation of feminists. They’re foul-mouthed (some of them), outrageously dressed (or undressed), with green and purple and orange hair (or just regular hair). They’re straight and lesbian and both. They’re young — in their early twenties mainly. And dynamite — these are not women you want to mess with.

A cynical press was quick to label a “new wave” of feminists in the 1980s as “fuck-me feminists” (aka, with weird decorousness here in Wikipedia, “sex-positive feminists”). Well, as the new generation of feminists would say, fuck that.

These are the fuck-you feminists. The SlutWalk feminists. There was lots of skin on display here in Seattle on Sunday, and great tattoos. There were ripped fishnet stockings and day-glo pink platform boots and deliberately slutty thrift-store bras and teddies. Five-year-olds with signs saying “Free to be me.” A super-sexy Superwoman. A woman in full Amish dress and bonnet carrying a sign saying “How I dress does not mean Yes.” And lots of people with black teeshirts with “This is what a feminist looks like” in white lettering — many of them men.

“The radical notion that no-one deserves to be raped,” read one ironic banner. “Fuck shame,” read another. And “Jesus loves sluts” (directed at the nutters from Westboro Baptist Church — the ones who picket military funerals — who gave up and took their “Jesus hates fags” signs to a gay picnic instead).

Shameless? You bet. These new feminists are taking all the old insults — slut, bitch, whore, dyke — and running with them, turning them inside out.

Rocking and shocking their feminist forebears? Definitely. Too many older feminists have criticized the SlutWalk movement for feeding into the over-sexualization of women — which makes them sound alarmingly like their own mothers criticizing them when they first took to the streets in protest (“I didn’t raise my daughter so’s she could go parading around like this in public…”)

Hey, the founding generation of feminists — my generation — don’t “own” feminism. That’s the whole point of founding a movement. You hand it on. Younger women take the reins. They reshape it, fight sexism in their own ways, redefine what it is to be free and female. They make the movement their own.

So what if most of the SlutWalkers haven’t read ‘Against Our Will,’ Susan Brownmiller’s classic on rape? They get it. Stop blaming the victim; blame the rapist. Stop shaming the victim; shame the rapist. You don’t get raped because of what you wear; you get raped because a rapist attacks you. It’s not a sex crime; it’s a crime of violence.

“I’m just sorry we still have to be out here saying this,” said one of the dozen or so women over forty in the crowd of over a thousand. I knew what she meant. In a perfect world, we’d be rid of rape. But it takes more than one generation. And this one’s going about it with an in-your-face directness that I totally admire.

So me, I just stood there beaming, aware of am alarming sense of absurdly maternal pride whelming up in me. I was so damn proud of this new feminist generation. Happy just to stand there and be part of their protest. And as ready as they were to stand up to any police officer who asks what a woman was wearing when she was raped and say “Fuck that.”

——————

Later the same day, for those with ethical reservations:

Was just in Elliott Bay Bookstore and came across this:

And smiled.

What does the right to dress slutty have to do with the right to wear hijab?

(No, this is not a trick question.)

Answer: they’re two aspects of the same thing — women’s right to assert themselves in whatever manner they choose. And that is a feminist issue. A political issue, that is.

Because sluts and veils are about the same thing — choice.

That’s why I insist equally on a woman’s right to wear hijab and on her right to dress as sexily as she likes. And it’s why I’ll be in downtown Seattle at noon on June 19 for SlutWalkSeattle.

The first SlutWalk was in Toronto last month after a police officer told a college safety forum (at a law school, no less) that women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized. No prize for guessing that he’d never heard of Susan Brownmiller’s classic analysis “Against Our Will,” which made it horribly clear that rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction and everything to do with power and aggression, whether the victim is five years old or ninety-five.

Thousands of women demonstrated in Toronto, and now there’s a whole wave of SlutWalks coming up, because as the Seattle site puts it: “From an 11-year-old in Texas being blamed for being gang-raped to a teenager in Seattle not being able to file rape charges because witnesses portrayed the act as consensual,” that police officer’s line of thought pervades our culture.

That is, men commit crimes against women, and women are made to take the blame.

Does this never end? It’s 2011 and women are still expected to modify their appearance, behavior, speech, even ideas in order to placate men? It’s bad enough what this says about what men think of women. But even worse is what it says about what men think about themselves. Are they really so hopeless that a flash of bare female flesh can turn them into instant criminals?

Which is where the veil comes in. Specifically, the hijab (which is actually a headscarf, not a veil, but reason prevails no more on nomenclature than it does on anything else to do with this issue). Because the veil too is a matter of choice: the woman’s choice, officer, not yours.

This isn’t about whether to cover up or to reveal. It’s about every woman’s right to choose. Whether you want to be slutty or modest, bare lots of flesh or none, that’s your decision, and nobody — not policemen, not clerics, not judges, not fundamentalists, not juries, not extremists, not husbands or boyfriends or fathers or brothers or sons — has the right to tell you otherwise. Or to force you to do otherwise.

For me, this is a rock-bottom matter of principle, not practice. Slutty was never my thing (except perhaps for a fancy-dress party), and the closest I’ve ever come to a hijab or full-face niqab was a keffiya wrapped around my head against a sandstorm in the northern Sinai. But if someone wants to hide her beauty, that’s her right. Just as if she wants to show it off, that’s also her right.

So you want to dress slutty on a Saturday night? Go ahead. You want to cover your head for prayer but not the rest of the time? Go ahead. How women dress can be a matter of political or cultural or religious identity or it can simply be playful fantasy; it can be utterly serious or slyly subversive. But because it’s still a question in the conventionally ‘male’ mind, it remains political — a fact well expressed in an excellent recent NPR report (“Lifting the Veil: Muslim Women Explain Their Choice”) on the personal politics of when and where Muslim women choose to veil.

I know the chances are slim, but really, I’d love to see hijab-wearing Muslim women among the Seattle SlutWalk participants on June 19. As the open invitation puts it,

People of all orientations, gender identities, races, ages, abilities, walks of life, and levels of sluttiness are invited to join us. All we ask is that you stand with us for what is right. We’re sick of being shamed for our sex choices and being told that survivors of sexual assault brought it on themselves. If you’re sick of it too, come walk with us!

I’ll be there of course, wearing my “Ride the SLUT’ tee-shirt (the SLUT in question being the one-and-a-half-mile-long boondoggle originally dubbed the South Lake Union Trolley until some official belatedly realized what the acronym was and ungraciously changed Trolley to Streetcar). And I think I’ll wear the teeshirt with some kind of veil over my face. Maybe an antique hat with a lacy scrim over the eyes, or a keffiyah, or a Halloween mask, or one of those costume-party eye masks with ostrich feathers. Or maybe, even, a niqab…

Kitty says:

June 21, 2011 at 9:50 am

bravo Lesley…I’ve posted this one to Facebook.
Hossam says:

June 21, 2011 at 9:52 am

Do cops ask what a woman was wearing when she was raped??
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 21, 2011 at 10:30 am
  
  Yes, even if the woman was raped in the middle of the night by an intruder who held a knife to her neck.
- Labrys says:
  
  June 22, 2011 at 11:15 am
  
  Yes. And when my daughter, at 14 1/2 was date-raped, they asked her what her grade point average was, too. At that point, I said we were “done” and took her from the room.
kyo_9 says:

June 21, 2011 at 10:25 am

Nice post.. as always~
Ali Zaidi says:

June 21, 2011 at 11:13 am

I say blame and punish the rapist but do not go slutty, also!!
- Labrys says:
  
  June 22, 2011 at 11:16 am
  
  You miss the point. THe point is people say women get raped for being slutty.
  But the majority of women who are raped are not the least bit slutty at all.
  
  A grandmother in her 70’s for instance, not slutty! It is not what you wear, it is the idea that women are responsible for being raped that is being attacked.
  
  I say “Stay slutty and carry a BIG stick”
- sarah says:
  
  July 17, 2011 at 4:15 pm
  
  it’s a woman’s right to dress ‘slutty’, whatever that means, if she chooses to. noone, however, has the right to rape. What I wear has nothing to do with wanting sex – it is not asking for it. If i want to wear a burqa, I will. if i want to wear a bikini, I will. None of that translates into what I want in terms of sex.
  
  The point is, women are often blamed for being raped due to what they wear, and this is not only ethically wrong, it is an example of an extremely fallacious argument – that choice of dress translates into consent, or something deserving of rape.
  
  how about we focus on society targeting rapists for their actions, which are ultimately much more harmful than anything a woman chooses to wear or not wear?
  
  that’d be nice.
Godfrey Teirre says:

June 22, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Slut is a pejorative term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals.

It’s hard to rape a slut, they want it more than you do, goes the thinking.
Dressing like a slut will most certainly create some interest from individuals, whose thinking goes along those lines.

How does the Slutwalk effort lessen *anyone’s* chance of getting raped??
Or will this show of “solidarity” somehow make them immune?
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 22, 2011 at 6:08 pm
  
  The idea of the SlutWalks is to stop blaming and shaming the women who are raped. What they wear, how they behave, how much they drank, what grades they got in school, what jobs they do, etc is all irrelevant to the rapist. Time to wake up and start really thinking, Godfrey.
Godfrey Tierre says:

June 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm

Mmm. The last 2 items you mention: grades, and jobs, have nothing to do with a rape scenario.
Alas the first three very much do; they create vulnerability in the victim, and can send very much the wrong signals to the would-be rapist.
And, what is commendable about dressing, behaving and drinking like a slut?
Is this the role model you are advocating for the young women of tomorrow?
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 23, 2011 at 6:38 pm
  
  I assure you that “the young women of tomorrow” are here today and am glad to say they have no need of my advocacy — and certainly not yours. Especially since you seem to have entirely missed the point. Just as a woman’s grades and jobs have nothing to do with rape, neither does her dress or behavior. Stop blaming women!
Godfrey Tierre says:

June 23, 2011 at 8:26 pm

There’s no “blaming” involved.
If someone gives you good advice not to step into a busy road without looking, do not cry Foul when run over by a truck.
The truck was there first, and potentially dangerous.
Putting yourself in harm’s way is just stupid.

And advocating sluttiness is just…sad, really.
- Hossam says:
  
  June 24, 2011 at 3:26 am
  
  The point is that men (or any would be rapist i suppose) is not an animal, they are in any case humans, and should really be able to control themselves, the idea that how a woman dresses increases the risk of her getting raped shows that men or any would be rapist has no mind or self control, or reason, and acts more like an animal than a human. I am not advocating sluttiness, but the message we are suppose to be giving out is: If you rape someone because you think she dressed like a slut, it’s your fault, not hers. If not dressing like a slut would avoid getting raped, then this shows we have a problem in how we perceive women. I think things like the slutwalk are not saying that women should wear like a slut, but it is raising awareness that nothing should be taken as an excuse to rape someone, rape is rape, no is no, it’s that simple.
- sarah says:
  
  July 17, 2011 at 4:17 pm
  
  did you just compare choice of dress and rape to stepping of a busy road, as though it’s the same thing?
  
  How about, instead of asking women to dress a certain way, you ask men to not rape? Could you try doing that? Maybe you’d do some actual good instead of subscribing to stereotypes about rape and doing a damn good job of adding to rape culture.
Godfrey Tierre says:

June 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

Possibly some room then, for better in-depth studies into the mind of the rapist.
I suspect most of the present discussion is based on ignorance.
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 24, 2011 at 2:14 pm
  
  On the contrary, we know a lot about rapists. The ignorance is yours.
  - sarah says:
    
    July 17, 2011 at 4:27 pm
    
    well said, lesley. dealing with ignorant people can be such a challenge – i try hard not to instantly yell, but I admit, I involuntarily raised an eyebrow at some of the stuff he was saying.
- sarah says:
  
  July 17, 2011 at 4:34 pm
  
  Did you know that a woman has a higher chance of being raped on a college campus as compared to women who don’t attend college campuses? interesting, eh? Make syou wonder how much good we do by classifying rapists as people outside of society and deviant – maybe we should focus on rape culture as a whole.
  
  I suspect your discussions and viewpoints are based in ignorance.
  
  here are a few things you should look up on your own time, should you have the interest or inclination or ability to perceive arguments rooted in logic, theories with a strong intellectual backbone.
  
  1) rape culture
  2) slut/stud paradox
  
  that’s a good start. maybe it’ll lead you to other things such as
  3) oppositional sexism vs traditional sexism
  
  good luck godfrey – i hope you see what most of us mean on this site at some point in your life – if not, it’s a tragic thing for you and women in your life simply because of the way you perceive women.
  
  also, comparing a rapist to a truck is is like saying that wearing provocative clothing makes a rapist rape – this is simply not true. Women in burqas are raped, women in hijabs are raped, women in so called modest clothing are raped – it is not the women’s fault that she is raped. Do you understand? Dress. is not consent. It is never consent. This is the fundamental thing you need to understand and recognise that rapists RAPE because THEY CHOOSE TO regardless of their victim’s choices. Their victims are tall short skinny fat promiscuous modest mentally challenged queer straight disabled abled strong weak – it doesn’t matter.
  
  asking a woman what she was wearing while raped is the same thing as asking her “well why didn’t you just fight him off then?” – that is a much closer analogy than the one you were striving for, because it PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HAVING BEEN RAPED squarely on her shoulders.
  
  I don’t normally use capital letters when commenting, but then, normally, I’m speaking with people on an even intellectual plane. With some people, using such methods might make the message sink in better.
Godfrey Tierre says:

June 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Well goodonya Lesley, always a pleasure to discover there is no other point of view.
Hope y’all succeed in whatever it is you aim to succeed in, and that you achieve a degree of pleasure from it also…
- sarah says:
  
  July 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm
  
  lol, we aim to succeed in getting rapists to stop raping, to stop this culture of shaming women, when we should be shaming rapists, that choice of dress is not remotely close to consent. We don’t care about women dress, we think men are not mindless creatures who think a particular dress means yes, and we think pejoratives like slut, which, in masculine culture translates to stud, is something worth reclaiming. Some of us would reclaim it, others not so readily – but all of us believe that CHOICE OF DRESS is not a reason or an excuse or a justification for rape. Do you understand that?
  
  The point of slutwalk is to highlight a few things:
  1) dressing like a ‘slut’ whatever that means is not an excuse for anyone to rape
  2) no matter what you wear, be it amish clothing, a burqa, a bikini, short shorts, fishnet stockings – whatever it is – none of that translates to consent
  3) the double standard of slut/stud – and that reclaiming the word slut in a positive context – why? because why is STUD such a compliment for describing the same actions that a woman labeled a slut is? ridiculous.
  
  What you don’t understand godfrey, is that we have analysed your point of view, know it very well, inside and out, and can probably intellectualise it and demolish it with very good logical arguments. What you have to back your argument are social mores that are outdated, oppressive, and illogical.
  
  there are many different points of view within feminist and queer theory – such as – is reclaiming the word slut really effective? some feminists would say yes, others no. There’s also classism to consider, and queer politics to consider – does slutwalk appeal to women from all socioeconomic classes and to those who do not identify as straight?
  
  we’ve moved on from your petty arguments after having given them considerable thought – dealing with logical fallacies is a cornerstone of any academic or intellectual feminist – and a practical aspect of dealing with ignorance in our lives.
  
  maybe you should read more, get out there, and actually learn why this is a movement. Go from a place of intellectual curiosity, and not defensiveness, and maybe you’ll learn things you didn’t expect to!
- sarah says:
  
  July 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm
  
  hope you learn a thing or two from these discussions or spread your misogynistic, stereotype-based filth elsewhere, and that you achieve a degree of remorse eventually when you figure out how wrong and ignorant you’ve been all along.
fozi says:

January 2, 2012 at 5:30 am

All those skanky men, dressed in their skanky underwear-showing baggy pants/ tight tops/ no tops with their bodies on show etc.

They’re dressing like studs, studs being those perceived to have loose sexual morals, they’re practically asking to be raped, abused, violated, hit.

They should choose what they wear with more thought! Watch what they drink, not drink like a skank! Otherwise they’re just inviting those dangerous evil women that are out there waiting to savagely attack, sexually assault and mutilate them…

..like walking in front of a lorry without looking.

Yes, it wasn’t entirely her fault, she couldn’t help herself, you were sending her mixed messages with how you were dressed /behaving/drinking.

How was she to know you didn’t want a gun butt smashed against your testicles or her long nailed fist shoved where the sun doesn’t shine? If you didn’t want it why didn’t you fight her off?

#banbaggypants

Linda Williams says:

April 24, 2011 at 2:29 pm

YOU GO! Leslie. Sorry I won’t be in your part of the world to walk with you.
Meg says:

April 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Good intentions can often have less than desirable ripple effects. Please rethink the idea you state at the end of your blog – that you will wear a “ride the SLUT” t-shirt in SlutWalk with a nijab or hijab. Exterior cover is not something to be half played with. Nijab and hijab in the U.S. communicate that one is Muslim. It matters, the way one behaves and dresses while clearly identifiable as Muslim. While a Muslim woman may choose the freedom of expression to wear the clothing you suggest, a non-Muslim woman doing so is taking things a bit too far, and the negative ripple effects would outweigh the positive. Equally, only Muslim women should have the right to choose to participate in SlutWalk in Islamic cover.
- Meg says:
  
  April 24, 2011 at 4:16 pm
  
  Oops – niqab, that is. 🙂
  - Lesley Hazleton says:
    
    April 24, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    
    Meg — point taken.
- Heba says:
  
  January 23, 2016 at 2:51 pm
  
  Meg
  
  I dont agree with your sentiment. If a non-Muslim female wears the headscarf its “taking Things a bit too far”? Excuse me but you are not in the position to tell others what they can or can not wear or how it in your opinion can be misunderstood or result in “negative” effects.
  
  A non-muslim wearing it is no different than a muslim female with sexy bright headscar combined with thight clothing, high heels and heaps of makeup piled on her face. And yes while the headscarf may denote to today to the common Westerner or American that that someone is a Muslim, I assure you the headscarf is an Arab traditional clothing.Only in recent 10-15 years has it spread to other non-Arab countries. The headscarf was absolutely unknown, unheard of just 10 years ago in many countries. So associations with a garb can change with time and agenda. Also worth knowing is that many Muslim girls wear the headscarf not due to religion but political/soeictal statement, fashion, peer pressure, identifying oneself as different from others etc. Also worth nothing is forced headgear as practised in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
  
  The author of the blog is entitled to wear the headscarf and a t shirt saying slut if thats what she pleases. Its ok you disagree but lets not pretend the World is black and white or that Muslims are one big homogenous group. We are not. Non-Muslims have worn the headscarf in solidarity with Muslims females before. No complaints from anybody. Only priase. But the minute it becomes part of the slutwalk or a sexual context we need to be careful? No. To many the headscarf is a feminist movement so why should the slutwalk be exempted.
Labrys says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:28 am

The idea that the “proper” world is controlled by men who cannot possibly be expected to control their own sexual urges unless women dress like medieval nuns has always left me stunned into confusion.

As for veils? I am not Muslim, but I often wish I could choose the privacy of covering both head and face because I simply do not desire to show that much of the personal “me” to a world that increasingly angers and dismays me. My veil would not be to control men’s urges, but to say “YOU do not have the right to cast your eyes upon me, you ASS!”
- Nur Saeedah says:
  
  April 26, 2011 at 6:09 pm
  
  As a reader, I respect Labrys comments.
  - Meg says:
    
    April 27, 2011 at 9:08 am
    
    Ditto, on respecting Labrys’ comments. 🙂
Lesley Hazleton says:

April 26, 2011 at 6:26 pm

Labrys, Nur — I understand (I suspect that’s why I prefer glasses to contact lenses: I can kind of hide behind them). But isn’t being seen part of being in the world?
- Nur Saeedah says:
  
  April 26, 2011 at 7:34 pm
  
  As Lesley Hazleton say, “she is sick of….”, well I tell u, I’m sick, looking at the world today,…of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, …murders, killings, bloodshed,…I borrow your word “sick” for the chaos in the world.
hossam says:

April 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm

I am so glad you brought up that comparison, it haunted me for a few days. I totally agree of course that what women choose to wear is their choice and their choice only. I remember contemplating before on the comparison of wearing Hijab versus wearing slutty as two opposites, then i thought to myself perhaps the full Niqab is the opposite of wearing a thong with the smallest of the bikini top (without getting into the identification issue). I stopped and couldn’t answer my own question, which is: should a woman be able to walk in the streets of Saudi Arabia for example wearing a bikini in the same way that a woman can walk in the streets of San Francisco for example wearing a Niqab? Is the comparison valid or am i going crazy? Another question is, usually women when coming to Islamic countries (or Muslim majority countries) they are asked to be modest in what they wear to be closer to this countries culture and tradition, is it valid to ask women when going to western countries to be less modest to match that country’s culture and tradition. Is the question valid in both directions? I hope i am making sense, sometimes i have problems expressing myself.

I agree with Meg’s point about the SLUT T-shirt with the hijab. Here is a video of protest in France after the Nikab law. It’s old but i don’t know if you saw it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8036686/French-women-cause-a-stir-in-niqab-and-hot-pants-in-anti-burka-ban-protest.html
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  April 27, 2011 at 8:48 am
  
  Hossam — this video is brilliant! Hadn’t seen it, so many thanks. Best of all: the black rectangles over the eyes of oglers, echoing the white rectangle of the two women’s eyes.
  NB viewers: as Hossam points out, it was done as a protest against the French ban-the-burqa law.
  And hey, relax everyone — it’d take a lot more than a SlutWalk to get me into niqab. Right now I’m favoring a little red 1950s hat with a veil much torn by time…
  - hossam says:
    
    April 27, 2011 at 10:59 am
    
    you’re welcome Lesley, i knew you would appreciate it. Btw i wasn’t trying to give any ideas for a protest, but this video just came to my mind when i read the article and thought i’d share it.
sarahk says:

April 27, 2011 at 11:11 am

Lesley, I am a hijab wearing woman and I completely agree with the principle you made in your post. It is about choice. I cannot expect to be able to choose a hijab if I restrict other women from their choices – that would be hypocrisy.

But – all choices come with consequences and repercussions. Someone can choose to drink alcohol – in itself that is not necessarily significant but there are consequences to when, where and how much you choose to drink. Similarly, wearing a bikini on a beach or park in the middle of the day is relatively safe for a woman but to do so at night alone, in a bad neighbourhood is not as safe. I do think a woman should protect herself by taking thinking about these issues.

I also agree with Hosam that how expats are expected to behave in the middle East is not equal to how expats can behave/dress when they come to the West. But then because the issue of dress is public it is easily spotted. There are plenty of other cultural differences between countries. You can’t have chewing gum in Singapore but there isn’t a spare bit of pavement in London without some!

Hope the walk goes well. On the principle of choice I – as a hijab wearing woman – would be happy to support the cause.
AJ says:

April 28, 2011 at 3:22 am

Lez …..like everyone you also have shared your share of extremism and I think its perfectly normal.
None of us is perfectly normal.
I strongly disagree at comparison of two extremes.
One should be matter of choice other is not.
There has to be a limit to woman’s choice.
This thing can go from slut walk to nude walk and there will be no stopping because its matter of choice and specially woman’s choice.
What would you say if Men ask for Men’s choice and public masterbation on sight of public display of women’s flesh.

Everything which goes against nature need to have a disceplined choice.
Women by nature are more shy and more modest than men thats why its a universal practice that man approach woman not vice versa…though exceptions are there and many societies are built on these exceptions but still it does not change the law of nature.

“Are they really so hopeless that a flash of bare female flesh can turn them into (anything).”

As a psychologist you know it but keep it a secret…if all the women know this weakness of men, mankind will be in deep trouble.
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  April 28, 2011 at 10:55 am
  
  AJ — I assure you, as a bona fide woman, that being a woman does not “go against nature.” And while it may in certain instances mean deep trouble for “mankind” — by which you presumably mean some but most definitely not all men — it does seem to be rather an integral part of humankind.
  The problem here may be language, but it sounds as though you assume women are “other,” that they exist only in men’s eyes, and that they should adapt their behavior, thinking, and existence accordingly. Please tell me I’m wrong in assuming that you assume this!
AJ says:

April 28, 2011 at 11:24 am

Lez

I think you are wrong in assuming what I allegedly assume.

“but it sounds as though you assume women are “other,” that they exist only in men’s eyes”

Actually I did not assume…I simply comment on one aspect of women which was under discussion and that discussion was women fla(e)shing in man’s eyes.
Unfortunately discussion was not why women exist.
I can tell you why men exist.
Men like to be Macho and Heroic and this all heroism is naught if there were no woman in Universe to appreciate.
All this pumping of muscles and body grooming for none other than women.
So now I can say woman exist in man’s eye ONLY and man exist in woman’s eyes ONLY.
Its not fair to use only one “ONLY”
I hate to be critical of a loving creature like yourself.
Love u
AJ
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  April 28, 2011 at 11:47 am
  
  Hey AJ, not taken as criticism (and I do like that play on fle(a)shing), but let’s hash it out a bit more:
  
  I don’t really believe you really believe this — that men only exist for women and women only exist for men? As though existence is nothing but sex? What about mind, spirit, heart, soul, everything that makes us human?
AJ says:

April 28, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Lez again you don’t believe something you don’t wana believe.
Sex is a big part but love is far more than just sex.
Women are color of this universe.
All this pumping and grooming is to feel good when appreciated and this appreciation is more in the feelings than physical contact i.e. sex.
When you look good you feel good and you are appreciated by thousands of eyes but you do not have sex with thousands of appreciaters.
So wrong to equate grooming ourselves for each other WITH sex…its all about feelings and feelings covers all the aspects you ask me i.e. mind,spirit,heart,soul etc.
What I am missing in your response is “MOTHER” which is the heart of nature if FATHER could be mind of nature.
Mother who nurture is the focus of universe…without mother universe would be dry of its habitants.
I am glad you are trying to know me more than I know myself.
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  April 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm
  
  Hey, what’s the matter with mothers being minds and fathers being hearts? Or both being both?
  The point: why insist on this male/female dichotomy?
AJ says:

April 28, 2011 at 9:02 pm

Heart is mature and in one central place.
Mind is wandering in need to be attached and reined in.
Heart is the focal point of body…mind is not even attached to body.
Heart is serene and graceful.. all the commotions are caused by mind but still it gets back to normal rhythm.
Heart is sign of stability and life…mind thinking of new ways of destruction.
Heart is MOTHER(control) of body mind is mostly step Dad…always roaming looking for new Moms.
A woman is hard to appease but I have a trump card.
Mind is as stupid as AJ and Heart is as graceful & loving as Lesley
Ali Zaidi says:

June 21, 2011 at 6:57 am

Well, to put it plainly,it is not just a matter of choice but rather a matter of right and wrong. You can choose to live a life of a thief or an honest hardworking person, but few would disagree that the former is a wrong choice. There are so many examples which can be given to emphasize that making the right CHOICE is very important (or even morally right).
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 21, 2011 at 7:40 am
  
  Precisely: your concept of right and wrong is your choice. Is death-with-dignity an act of love and kindness, or a cover for murder? Is giving birth to an unwanted child who will be abused and horribly neglected better than an early abortion? Is killing someone in war an act of heroism or of murder? Is keeping your head down, working hard, and minding your own business a cover for ignoring and thus assenting to social and political abuse and injustice?
Ali Zaidi says:

June 21, 2011 at 8:20 am

“..Is keeping your head down, working hard, and minding your own business a cover for ignoring and thus assenting to social and political abuse and injustice?” and I might add “bad moral practices”.

Yes, I agree that the concept of right and wrong is a personal choice, but then everything else is also right even the social and political abuse and injustice acoording to someone. Where to draw the line or rather who is anybody to draw lines between anything? Nothing is wrong; not even stealing, fraud ….

Personally, it is wrong to wear slutty dresses (man or woman; it just so happens that generally women wear slutty dresses). So, I cannot support the slutwalk even as a gesture towards supporting human rights. However, I do support the spirit of the walk i.e., curb the criminals (i.e., rapist MEN) not the victim (which is clearly the slutty woman). To me being slutty is a much lesser evil than being a rapist, but nevertheless, a BAD choice.
AJ says:

June 22, 2011 at 1:42 pm

With due respect I tend to disagree with both of you

“Yes, I agree that the concept of right and wrong is a personal choice”

Good and bad is personal choice…not right and wrong
Right and wrong are universal
Good and bad are relevant
Right and wrong are absolute

I will elaborate with just one example

If whole society becomes deviant…it probably good for them but still is deviation.
The same sex marriage good for San Francisco but bad for Texans.
Same sex marriage is not wrong because its bad for Texans.
Its wrong because its not right and its against nature
and thats absolute truth.

If all Texans join SFO in same sex marriage…it will be good for all of them but still its absolute wrong.
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 22, 2011 at 2:03 pm
  
  Oh AJ, you are such an absolutist. And still stuck on the idea of deviance. I rather like the bumper sticker that says “If God didn’t want gays, he wouldn’t have created them.” Same applies to any group of people you consider “deviant.”
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  October 27, 2011 at 8:38 am
  
  Good and bad is another way of saying right and wrong, really.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 27, 2011 at 10:10 am
    
    Right and wrong are universal…good and bad are not.
    
    Sometimes lying may be good but still it does not make it right.
    - Ali Zaidi says:
      
      October 27, 2011 at 12:49 pm
      
      But when lying is divinely good (there are many cases where it is Islamically permitted to lie), it is right also. So I look at Good and Bad from Islamic context.
  - Ali Zaidi says:
    
    October 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    
    When lying is divinely good, it is right also.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 27, 2011 at 11:11 pm
    
    Hypothetically in Divine terms lying may be good to save a life but then onus on God’s Justice, still lying is not right to set as a precedent.
    - Ali Zaidi says:
      
      October 28, 2011 at 7:47 am
      
      For every act (good or bad, right or wrong) the onus is always on God’s justice. Moreover, it is not hypothetical that lying may sometimes be right, it is sometimes practical and right/good. I think you are over complicating the issue. I know what you mean when you draw a line between good and right, and bad and wrong but I was equating them at a very (or may be at its most) fundamental level.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 28, 2011 at 11:12 pm
    
    I think we distract ourselves by a less clear example.
    At what point do you think same gender sex is RIGHT.
    
    Though its always good for participants because they like and enjoy it.
    If whole world get into this disease still it would be un-natural and wrong.
    
    Nature does not change because of majority.
    Nature is standard and every pole has it logical attraction.
    
    On an agnostic forum its difficult to talk about Divine intervention, perhaps you made it complicated by bringing in Divine aspect of right and wrong…I was restricting myself to laws of nature.
    
    Going back to “Lying”
    Its natural to feel guilty when you lie but some people do not that foes not make it right.
    Its natural to respect human life…when you kill you feel guilty but some people kill and not feel guilty…does it make it “RIGHT”
    - Lesley Hazleton says:
      
      October 29, 2011 at 9:09 am
      
      Being gay is a “disease”? AJ, that’s Neanderthal. Not to mention bigoted. And you have some very strange ideas about “nature.” The Quran says “To you your religion, to me mine.” In that same spirit, you might try this approach: “To you your sexuality, to me mine.”
      - Ali Zaidi says:
        
        October 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm
        
        Being gay is wrong/right, I donot know. But to say that gayism is right so is homosexuality, that is careless over-generalization. I believe there is a fundamental difference between gayism and homosexuality. The difference between the two may be is the difference between having sex with your partner and having sex with someone other than your partner (that is interpretted by almost all as infidelity). I am sorry for not coming up with a more articulate analogy. Gayism could be by design (which may be ok then), but homosexuality is by choice (which is then a wrong choice).
        
        As for your Quranic quote “To you your religion, to me mine.”, it is probably the most misunderstood line on Quran. This quote does not mean that Quran sanctions all religions or whatever religion one chooses. Quran,atleast, makes it very clear in the context of this quote that one and only TRUE religion is Islam. I am not defending it, rather only clarifying the context of this Quranic quote.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 29, 2011 at 11:39 am
    
    Lesley abnormality is disease.
    Pl don’t tell me same gender sex is normal.
    It may not be as bad as I think but it needs intellectual audacity to call it normal.
    You are taking my stand as religious fervor.
    
    I am great fan of Freddie Mercury…it does not make me accept gay as normal.
    Heres his last song…none knows except him that he is dying with aids…That makes this song more inspirational…my heart goes out to him.
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd9GBtsq-54&feature=related
    - Lesley Hazleton says:
      
      October 29, 2011 at 5:13 pm
      
      What exactly is wrong with something that is not the norm? Brilliance is not the norm. Honesty is not the norm. Integrity is not the norm. Are you saying that the norm — i.e. what the majority are or do or think — is what everyone should be or do or think? Should everyone in the US be Christian (and all non-Christians, per your definition, be considered diseased)? Should everyone in Israel be Jewish (and all non-Jews, per your definition, be considered diseased)? Do you not realize the implications of what you are saying, AJ? Wake up! At least figure out why homosexuality is so threatening to you that you need to label it a disease.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 29, 2011 at 10:20 pm
    
    Lez , actually “Normal” was not the subject..”Disease” was.
    One of predominant definition of disease is “abnormality”
    You took offence on my calling them “disease”
    
    To learn that human being is born on nature…one does not need to get Phd..one just need to born and soon find out which pole is repelling and which pole is attracting
    
    Brilliance is goal achieved…not abnormality….lacking common intelligence to live daily affairs is abnormality…scarcity is not abnormality either.
    
    Homosexuality is not a threat to me…its threat to its victims
    - Lesley Hazleton says:
      
      October 30, 2011 at 8:20 am
      
      Enough, AJ. I really can’t imagine why you even read this blog if this is the way you think. I have asked you before to put a lid on your homophobic bigotry. Yes, it’s offensive to everything this blog stands for. Do it again and you will leave me no option but to shut you out of the comments. — L.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 30, 2011 at 1:02 pm
    
    Lesley I was sharing my genuine feelings
    At least I was not playing with words.
  - Ali Zaidi says:
    
    October 31, 2011 at 11:07 am
    
    AJ – if you talk of right and wrong based on how nature intends it to be, then it is totally speculative. One can take the concept of right and wrong in any direction one is satisfied with without having to feel a need for its general approval by others. Something different in nature does not have to be wrong; it can be evolution, which will survive, and spread and count as among the ‘normals’ after some passage of time. Nature-wise was the emergence of human species Right when the majority was not human species? According to your suggested definition of right/normal, the human species only became right/normal after it survived to a size-able population. So if true, then even nature gave the wrong (human species) a chance to survive and prosper.
    
    The point is the you cannot be absolute as how the nature intends right and wrong to be, unless, probably, if you use some divine measures to judge it. The nature of human sociology changes with time and so will the definition of right/wrong (from nature’s perspective).
  - Ali Zaidi says:
    
    October 31, 2011 at 11:22 am
    
    AJ – …. more examples on un-natural is not wrong (always). The nature probably intended that a human be born through its naturally prescribed process of male-female sexual intercourse. However, the modern science has enabled the birth of a child through test-tube medical procedure, thus circumventing the natural intercourse process. Is the new medical procedure normal? No. But is it wrong? Again no. Even many Islamic scholars have clearly sanctioned this way of conception of a human embryo.
    
    The natural ways of doing things is probably the most un-complicated ways, thus, facilitating the human life to survive/prosper in any environment, how basic it may be, but does not stop us from exploring/adopting other more complicated ways of doing the same things, which may be suitable in other not-so basic environments.
  - AJ says:
    
    November 1, 2011 at 6:03 am
    
    Ali Zaidi
    
    I see synonymity in yours and Lesley’s argument.
    I never said majority will make the nature, on the contrary I disagreed with this notion all along my arguments.
    What I meant “nature is built in” thats why it survives and become majority….things against nature usually have short life and perish.
    
    Whatever with nature is “Right” and whatever against nature is “Wrong”.
    
    Lesley gave “Brilliance” as scarce so un-natural but good and now you are giving examples of tube babies and human embryo as un-natural but good for human exploration and scientific evuloution.
    
    Theres nothing wrong with scientific research but its full of if,may.but…do you think by 2060 there will be less intercourse and to many tes tube babies…so far we haven’t seen any test tube survived to full growth…its good as scientific endeavors but to make it parctice need a fight againt nature….making it practice is wrong thats un-natural and not normal.
    
    Respecting the human life is in nature of human beings thats why its right and its natural and its normal.
    Killing human being is sanctioned in religions and in a Godless country but to defend…This right and wrong is nature related not religion related.
    
    Religion is not about nature…Religion is nature.
    - Ali Zaidi says:
      
      November 1, 2011 at 7:46 am
      
      You contradict yourself by bringing the religion into your arguments. I am afraid all your arguments are abstract without hard evidence. As I said earlier that ‘what is nature’ can be defined probably in infinite ways. So, no one including you can claim absoluteness of one definition of nature. You seem to base you religion on it being nature. So, if nature can be defined in many ways so can your religion be defined in as many ways.
    - Ali Zaidi says:
      
      November 1, 2011 at 7:51 am
      
      “….but to make it parctice need a fight againt nature….making it practice is wrong thats un-natural and not normal.”
      
      It reminds me of the Mollahs of my teen times who declared the first landing on the moon as meddling with the nature and hence wrong. But now no one in their sane mind can say moon ventures are wrong. I am afraid your claims are baseless, you have not given any evidence or logical arguments to prove your claims. Basically you are just making claims without telling us how you prove them.
    - Lesley Hazleton says:
      
      November 1, 2011 at 9:25 am
      
      I think you need a course in basic statistics. I did not say that scarce means unnatural. It simply means toward the ends of the bell curve, i.e. the minority. And normal, once more, simply means the center of the bell curve. There is no judgment implied. You might need to study some science too: you have the most peculiar idea of ‘nature,’ and are apparently totally unaware that the natural world contains more than you dream of.
AJ says:

June 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Lez
I am sorry to say
most of the gays are not by design but by practice
A gay by design is not deviant…its deficient
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 22, 2011 at 6:05 pm
  
  AJ — you really have to stop this kind of homophobic stuff if you want to continue commenting here. Consider it akin to Islamophobia or antisemitism — irrational fear and prejudice. So please, stop, since I’d hate to lose your point of view on other subjects.
  - AJ says:
    
    June 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm
    
    OK Lez
    good n thanks
  - Ali Zaidi says:
    
    October 7, 2011 at 9:05 am
    
    Whatever happened to freedom of speech?! What happened to debating on issues with civility?! Paradoxes, paradoxes……
    - Lesley Hazleton says:
      
      October 7, 2011 at 10:01 am
      
      No paradox here. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It is not freedom of civil speech and non-freedom of uncivil speech.
  - Ali Zaidi says:
    
    October 7, 2011 at 10:41 am
    
    … then why warning AJ for expressing himself? It sounds paradoxical..
    - Lesley Hazleton says:
      
      October 7, 2011 at 11:52 am
      
      Ah, sorry, thought you were commenting on another post. Good point in principle, but in practice, my tolerance does not extend to homophobia, any more than it does to Islamophobia or antisemitism. Mea culpa, perhaps, but I stand by it.
  - Ali Zaidi says:
    
    October 7, 2011 at 1:08 pm
    
    That is the point I wanted to make. I may digress from the topic, but mankind, including the so-called liberals, modernists etc., is a mix of paradoxes, and the biggest paradox, probably, is that the mankind does not know it lives in paradoxes (a.k.a., hypocrisy).
    One of the paradox is freedom of speech. People who deem themselves tolerant do not realize how intolerant they actually are. While they choose to be offending to others, in the name of freedom of speech,and freedom of choice, they cry foul when someone offends them with his/her freedom of speech.
  - AJ says:
    
    October 10, 2011 at 2:29 am
    
    Freedom of speech and freedom of choice etc etc all kind of freedoms, all are relevant and circumstancial and almost hypocritical.
    
    A Canadian friend of mine was surprized…whats wrong with Pork…why can’t we eat it….I ask him..can you eat Dog…answer was big “NO”
    
    The toughest job is getting into one’s shoes to know him…
    
    Lesley may not like a talk against gay sex but I am confident she will be appalled at the idea of bestiality or at a man meting a cow.
    
    She understand the shoe size of a gay but she is not familiar with bestial man.
    
    regardless, her standards should be accepted because its her forum.
    - Ali Zaidi says:
      
      October 10, 2011 at 11:07 am
      
      I just wanted to expose the weaknesses/gaps in her arguments. Ideally what people like to believe is that one can be either tolerant or intolerant, not both at the same time. But in reality people are both.
AJ says:

June 28, 2011 at 10:31 pm

Lez you understand me right but label me wrong.
I am not absolutist.
I believe in guilt ridden life.

The story of Adam and Iblees(Satan) in Quran is not just fantasy reading…it has a message and reflect human psychology on two different paths.
One is emotional, weeping and under burdon of guilt.
Other is calm cool and calculated and seeking time to implement his plan.

One is humiliated other is arrogant
Guilt ridden lifestyle cut the roots of arrogance.
In other words
I would rather be hurt than hurt someone
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  June 29, 2011 at 10:14 am
  
  I understand, but think that there are many other possibilities. Perhaps that is my arrogance…
irtezaa says:

October 7, 2011 at 9:01 am

I do not understand what is with this slut walks? To me it is an over-reaction. Well then women almost always make a deal out of nothing:).
The cop basically advised the potential victims of the precautions they should take to keep them out of harms way. This is perfectly logical and acceptable. I live in a busy campus in Atlanta and the police keep floating around flyers to us young people to avoid walking on dark streets, staying up late, moving around alone when out in late nights so that we could be safe from muggings, sexual assaults and any such similar untoward incidents. It is just a plain accepted fact that the police just cannot physically control all these crimes and thus we find it perfectly alright, prudent, and natural to curb our certain lifestyles to minimize the harm against us!
The police are not implying that the crimes are perfectly alright to go on, it is just that they cannot be everywhere to control it, so ask us to take precautions. And guess what, the residents, the liberals, and the slutties do not mind these take these precautions.
The slut walks have trivialized the issue of sexual harassment and assaults against women. One can certainly take exception of what (insensitive) words the cop used, but to march in streets to defiantly express that we won’t take any precautions and you, the police, do whatever you have to stop the crime against us is childish, paradoxical.
- Lesley Hazleton says:
  
  October 7, 2011 at 10:04 am
  
  You seem to have missed the point here, which is the practice of blaming the victim instead of the perpetrator. The Slutwalks are a dramatic way of underlining this point. And the majority of rapes are committed not in dark streets by strangers, but indoors by acquaintances.
  - Irtezaa says:
    
    October 7, 2011 at 10:28 am
    
    Would you not think that if a person roams around on street on NY with bundles of cash sticking of this pockets and gets robbed, you would not apportion some blame on him for getting robbed. I know that robbery is wrong and must be stopped but this behavior by the person is also reckless.
Irtezaa says:

October 7, 2011 at 10:19 am

And walking out as sexual objects is the answer? I maintain that the spirit of this event is entirely correct. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that blaming the victim is totally wrong. But was the cop blaming the victim? No, basically he was asking them to take precautions and admitting his helplessness to protect the victims. I agree he did say it insensitively. But what the women do? They march out half naked; wow, women demeaning themselves by insisting to be seen as a sexual object. Ok, if this what women want, I am sorry for them. You cannot change the nature of things.
AJ says:

November 1, 2011 at 9:43 am

Ali Zaidi
I failed to see how I brought religion into arguments…
When I say religion is not about nature…religion is nature..which part you did not understand.
Heres how you brought in religion..
AZ says
“So I look at Good and Bad from Islamic context”

This is bringing religion into arguments.
Religion is all about God…when I say religion is nature…I excatly meant theres no nature without God.
How Godly scriptures explain nature is bringing religion into discussion….To understand nature you don’t need Divine scriptures.
Let me quote here religious scripture to elaborate understanding the nature without Divine scripture.
Abrahim(as) witnessed the day and night…sunrising and sunset then without Divine revelations understood the nature though Prophet but understood God without Divine help…his story is story of a common man how he is bestowed with sense of right and wrong.
Hopefully you will take it as hard evidence..

Then you come up with this absurd statement

“It reminds me of the Mollahs of my teen times who declared the first landing on the moon as meddling with the nature and hence wrong.”

How in the name of sanity you can come up with such ludicrous comparison of moon landing and motherless test tube baby.
Moon landing is achievement as Brilliance is excellence…trying to give birth to a motherless baby is meddling with nature if its not just a scientific experiment but meant to adopt as practice.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 1, 2011 at 11:55 am
  
  “I failed to see how I brought religion into arguments…When I say religion is not about nature…religion is nature..which part you did not understand.”
  
  when you said “religion is nature”, that is when you brought religion into your arguments. It is ok to make a claim but to prove it is the real task. And on top of that you do not only not prove it, but also make it sound as if it is the only truth. My friend trust me on it, such attitude borders arrogance.
  
  As for motherless test tube babies, you seem not to know the complete context. All test tube babies are not mother and father less. It is just another way to conceive a legitimate child. I can almost see that many years from now people like you will be calling the test tube babies as another great achievement just like the moon landings which were not many years ago were considered ‘meddling with nature’.
  
  Interpretation of right and wrong requires well rounded observation and education. You are not doing any justice to the interpretation of TRUTH due the lack of appropriate knowledge and experience.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm
  
  “Abrahim(as) witnessed the day and night…sunrising and sunset then without Divine revelations understood the nature though Prophet but understood God without Divine help…his story is story of a common man how he is bestowed with sense of right and wrong.
  Hopefully you will take it as hard evidence..”
  
  AJ this is not hard evidence as you proclaim it to be. If it was really so hard, then most of the scientists would have been religious. Moreover, how can you claim that Abrahim(as) understood God without Divine help. One could say that Abrahim(as) was divinely guided to draw the right conclusions from his observations of the skies.
  
  Again I emphasize that please do not be so absolute but rather be flexible and open to ideas. This way it more likely that you will understand the true meanings of the TRUTH.
AJ says:

November 1, 2011 at 9:57 am

Lesley
You know a lot more than I do
That air you carry is your disadvantage
AJ says:

November 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm

Ali Zaidi

I think you are not focused
“Religion is nature” was not my claim…it was not even subject of discussion….I said it when you bring in religion as a source to explain right and wrong(nature).

Test Tube Babies are achievement to treat infertility…I never said anything wrong with this treatment….yes to conceive an egg outside mother’s body and then not putting it back in mother womb is un-natural and WILL not survive.
A baby which is just conceived outside medically but formed a full grown birthable size in mother womb is perfectly a natural birth.

AZ I will give you friendly advice pl refrain from making such name calling like “border line arrogance” which is your own ignorance for not being focused.
When I say right and wrong is human restricted not as you said, religion restricted.
Who is making his argument narrower than the other.
Argument arise from difference of opinion…one is yours other is mine…when you said it…its just your argument…when I said it…its labelled as “arrogance” and accused as speaking all the absolute truth and for some weird reason equated with mulla.

Show some tolerance for difference of opinion and prove you are civilized…blaming mulla or accusing mulla does not make you civilized.

I give everyone just one chance to show attitude..your one chance is expired..hopefully you will behave.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 2, 2011 at 4:45 am
  
  Ok, I think I have had enough. As far as I am concerned you have been exposed, your lack of knowledge, understanding have been exposed. All you can do is beat about the bush with no reasoning. Your reasoning so far has been an air filled balloon. You make claims and are unable to support them. Humility demands you realize the holes in your arguments and work towards plugging them. Agreement and disagreement is part of a debate, but the problem is you are not debating, rather, you are asserting yourself without much reasoning (and that is arrogance borne out of ignorance). You have a definition of nature that you think is the only definition. Since your knowledge seems very limited and narrow, so are your conclusions. You have not remained consistent in your arguments.
  
  The examples of the few very-past scientists you gave shows that you live in the past. For you info Newton, and the other you mentioned were religious before then scientists. They were not scientists turned religious.
  
  Philosophy does not hang in the air, rather, it is based on critical thinking and needs to be explained through logic, not through day-dreaming and baseless claims (as you seem to be making all along). It shows that your ideas of philosophy,in particular, and nature, in general, are based on lack of understanding. I suggest you broaden your knowledge (as I will do too) and re-think your ideas. Rigidity is killing whereas flexibility/humility will enable you to understand TRUTH.
  
  I have nothing personal against you. Moreover, my exchanges with you were on a one-to-one basis, so there is no chance that I am making you a bad example in front of others. What you do not realize is that your shallow arguments are making you a bad example. So, I will reiterate that you keep your mind, eyes and ears open and absorb knowledge. The more dimensions you add to your knowledge the more you will find about the TRUTH. Take care and good luck (to you and me in the quest of TRUTH). I learned a lot through these exchanges with you. Thank you.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 2, 2011 at 4:51 am
  
  My sincere advice to you is read, read and read with an open mind. Doing so might get you somewhere close to TRUTH. Bye bye.
AJ says:

November 2, 2011 at 12:12 am

Ali Zaidi

Where you learn most of the scientists were not religious.
Father of Algebra, Chemistry and Medicine all were graduate of Imam Baqir(as) religious University.
Recently if we can call any scientist Father of all the scientists was Newton, a hardcore religious.

Abrahim(as) guidance was not by means of revelations…power to judge right and wrong bestowed in human being.

We are discussing philosophy…what kind of hard evidence you are looking for.

Scientists may fell apple towards sky probably in 3080..you won’t be here and I won’t be here to witness the nature changes by science.
At least you are here now…you can champion future potential developments right here right now with minimum of your contribution i.e. curse mulla and label me of arrongance because I dare disagree with your stand.
Set me as a bad example so in future no one try to disagree with you….This would be your todays future achievement.
AJ says:

November 2, 2011 at 9:00 am

I have been exposed…really !!!!!!
When did I say “I hereby declare myself scholar”
Suppose I have all the defects you mentioned…how does it make me arrogant.
We were arguing because we have difference of opinion…had we had same opinion we won’t be arguing.
At the begining of the discussion you should had set the conditions that after few discourse I had to agree with you otherwise I would be labelled as “Borderline Arrogant”…this condition was not set and agreed so I felt like hit below the belt.
Heres the summary of discussion.
I said sense of right and wrong is builtin by nature…thats why its universal and absolute…I never said my argument is absolute i.e. arrogance…I could have been wrong in my position which you had to point out with counter argument but you failed.

You said right and wrong is religion related otherwise its same as good and bad.
An atheist would respect the human life same way as should be done by Muslim Christians and Jews.
For atheist no element of God…where did he learn to respect human life i.e. sense of right and wrong built in nature..that was the hard evidence I gave you in the begining you failed to notice…perhaps when you say “Hard” you meant something made of solid like steel,wood, stone etc.

For the love of Ali(AS) I have a zeal for justice…which made me never be unjust to anyone and never let anyone be unjust to me.

Perhaps between two of us you had more knowledge of all the subjects we discussed.
Thanks for a nice discussion.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 2, 2011 at 10:52 am
  
  “I said sense of right and wrong is builtin by nature”. That is where your arguments break down! Nature can be defined in as many ways as there are humans on Earth! You base all your arguments and claims on this word ‘nature’ which can have infinite interpretations and meanings. But you stick to this stance that nature is what you are defining it to be, disregarding any other definitions of nature. This, my friend, is arrogance which is so prevalent in us, the commons muslims. People like you think that whatever you know is the only right, and everything else is wrong. this act of yours is misrepresentation of Islam and i take a very strong exception to it, so I make it a point to tell you this.
  
  Your premise all along has been as follows: Everything that is against nature is wrong. The biggest failure in all your subsequent arguments is failure to prove that your definition of nature is the only correct one. Probably you were so blinded by rigidity that you failed to read and understand one simple counter-argument that ‘nature’ can be defined in so many different ways. This weakness of yours clearly indicates to me that you need to educate yourself more to open your mind to new and more relevant ideas. A discussion is not just about making arguments, rather, it is about making sound arguments.
  
  “For atheist no element of God…where did he learn to respect human life i.e. sense of right and wrong built in nature..that was the hard evidence I gave you…”. You give me one vague example and call it hard evidence!? The same atheist also says that if a thing or behavior or an attitude exists it is part of nature, it does not matter if it exists in abundance or scarcity. People still kill each other in the name of their countries, so it means it is also a nature of men to kill each other. Right and wrong is relative and so (by your arguments) is nature, also relative.
  Again, I insist that instead of arguing with me, read, read and read and broaden you mind
AJ says:

November 3, 2011 at 3:40 am

“Nature can be defined in as many ways as there are humans on Earth!”

So the phenomena controlling material world also known as laws of nature…no more laws because this genius thinks every individual is free to define and interperet on his own…first step is to define anything then laws are made…once something has as many definitions as many human then laws should be as many human…this argument is hillariously absurd.

Genius btw what are your expertese.
Political philosophy
existence philosophy
philosophy of cultures
philosophy of science
philosophy of religions
philosophy of non civilized discussion
philosophy of no tolerance
philosophy of bullshit.

You have been preaching me like Jibrael, read read read in the name of az but you never mentioned what should I read, james hadley chase, lesley hazelton, Ali shariyati, ismat chughtai, minto etc etc.

Theres always danger when I read something you may disallow as old fashioned or not upto your weird standard.
Quoting three father of sciences from Imam Baqir(as) University deeply disappointed you as stone age thinking.
And quote of Newton was also not to your weird taste…you entertained the readers with following gems

“For you info Newton, and the other you mentioned were religious before then scientists. They were not scientists turned religious”

Did you ever ponder why I never responded to this stupendouly stupid statement of yours…this is childish and not worth responding..I am doing it now because you are stubborn and literally arrogant in your high claim ignorance.
I have never seen a child scientist at the age of 5 then later on when he grew he chose his religious/non religious path.
Another reason I never responded to this silly argument was the subject of discussion…which is not about exposing each other and making personal attacks.

You have not shown any humility so far…so its the time to call a spade a spade…you are under no circumstances my mental equal…so I must set a rule before we continue to engage.
You keep touching different topics in between the lines and every topic need truckload of arguments…why people kill each other etc…this forum has no space for such lengthy discussions.

I will throw a line here and you dare not expand the subject…just stick to it.

How justice system work in Russia….are they allowed to kill every now and then…how their courts work…what basis they have for their justice system.

Good Luck
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 3, 2011 at 4:32 am
  
  I see no point in engaging with you. My advice to you is read,absorb knowledge, and broaden your mind. This will help you better make your arguments. Your rants are indication of your weak knowledge base, that is all. You are hell-bent to prove your point, but obviously are unable to do so because of the lack of general knowledge and analysis skills. This is perceived as arrogance: if you do not have a good point, admit it instead of just rambling on and on and on. Moreover, if in the beginning of all your arguments you add ‘I think/believe’, your arguments will become more amiable, and the attitude of others towards you will also become amiable. People like humility.
  
  Ok, let us agree to disagree. I am sure if ever I come across you face-to-face, I will extend my hand to you in friendship. So no hard feelings; It happens in a course of discussions that things get heated up. I feel we have no common grounds to continue from here on.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 3, 2011 at 4:40 am
  
  “….what should I read, james hadley chase, lesley hazelton, Ali shariyati, ismat chughtai, minto etc etc.”
  
  Since you need to learn how to make sound arguments (I see this as your main weakness [it is very common in most Muslims]), you need to acquire knowledge of ‘logic’. Analytical sciences are relevant in this regard. Ever wondered why we Muslims are lagging behind? We lack the knowledge of reasoning. At present, we cannot even interpret correctly our own books! It will teach you the rules of how to prove your point. It is a very generic tool and can be applied in any kind of arguments.
AJ says:

November 3, 2011 at 5:26 am

I am still trying to digest what are common people(Muslims) 99% and where you descend from…Mars ???
Don’t you feel any shame in keep repeating the word “Humility”
Condescending against common people and with contempt is your idea of humiity…do you know the meanings of humility.

I never said what kind of group I am representing here…I am just myself and you should be just yourself in this exclusive discussion…subject of disscussion should be our faocus not who we are.
You are such a genius you learn from my writing that I am representing common Muslims and for some weird reason mulla also.
In civilized discussion we usually catch the weak arguments of opponent not his allegience…accusing the allegience means your logic is exhausted.
In a losing argument against a Jew you may stoop to say “I know you will never agree because you are Jew and I know your type”.

In this discussion you diagnozed me not as a Jew but common Muslim and then you got audacity to use word “Humilty” at least 5 times.
What are your litrary skills…theres big question mark ????
Do you know the potency and weight of every word you used.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 3, 2011 at 7:03 am
  
  Thanks for correcting me that you are a Jew. I have nothing against Jews or any other religions. So now I stand corrected. Sorry for this. It is just that since you mentioned Ali with (AS), I wrongly assumed you a Muslim. I have had such discussions with people from other religions also and they seem not to have much clue on such issues as we discussed.
  
  Your weak and baseless arguments, along with your mention Ali(AS) led me to believe that you were a common Muslim. I am a Muslim and so know how we argue. Your arguments followed very typical pattern of ours.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 3, 2011 at 7:06 am
  
  …. and then you mentioned Islamic sholars and a Shia Imam Baqir(AS), it further strengthened my assumption of you being a Muslim.
AJ says:

November 3, 2011 at 7:33 am

Still you are rotating around Jews and Muslims.
We are people…we are human being.
We can not be bad for who we are
we are bad for what we are.

Slandering is another word to add in your vocabulary.

Common are people and masses…
You are neither a King nor a celebrity nor a sceintist…assumptions that you are from Mars is only way making you un-common.
Your attitude full of humility also make you un-common.
You are full of everything
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 3, 2011 at 8:19 am
  
  Your rants confirm my impression of you: you are at least illogical, unfocused, verbose, rigid, confused, and distracted. (these are typical symptoms of a man with very limited knowledge but who thinks he has the most knowledge).
  
  It is not who you are that made me judge you this way, rather it is what you have been saying so far. i do not care even if you were from Mars (this is hilarious). You seem incapable (due to your rigidness) to even comprehend this simple thing.
AJ says:

November 3, 2011 at 8:56 am

“It is not who you are that made me judge you this way, rather it is what you have been saying so far”

are you on acids?

What I have been saying so far …
I am common Muslim ???
I am mulla ?????

All this belong to allegedly who I am not what I am.

I am illogical and you with 7 billion natures is very logical.

I am not interested in name calling…you are no match.
You yourself say you are judging me…I laready have said your litrary skills sucks…you can not measure and weigh the words before printing them.
- Ali Zaidi says:
  
  November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am
  
  “What I have been saying so far …”. Let me remind you what you have been saying so far. If you focused I did not need to remind you.
  You basically said everything against nature is wrong. I said that you cannot define nature absolutely. That is it. From there on you have been trying desperately to assert that your definition of nature is the only right definition without an ounce of logic (which is arrogance). But you get latched on during the discussions are non-issues. That means you are distracted and do not know how to identify and address issues and organize your arguments accordingly. Please learn some education on how to make arguments.
AJ says:

November 4, 2011 at 12:17 am

OK great
Thanks for sound advice

Blog

About

Books

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

“Fuck-You” Feminism

Sluts and Veils

Order the Book

Tag Cloud

Recent Posts

Blog

About

Books

AgnosticA Spirited ManifestoAvailable April 4, 2016

Agnostic

The First Muslim

After The Prophet

Jezebel

Mary

More from LH