The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[godelian]

Islam's only about 1500 years old. Human biology is much, much older than that. What right has Islam to define anybody's biological imperatives? Meanwhile, the Koran contains no biological content or knowledge at all, and doesn't even pretend to.

But back to my question: what certifies Islam as justifiably authoritative on families, given its practices?

Islam is authoritative for Muslims...

Well, only for those people who've already been fooled by Islam; and Zoroastrianism is authoritative for Zoroastrians, and Hinduism is authoritative for Hindus, and Judaism is authoritative for Jews, and Satanism for Satanists, and Marxism for Marxists...but you're begging the question: why SHOULD Islam be granted any authority by anybody, given that it's record of family destruction is so obvious?

Two billion people believe that Islam is the ultimate moral authority, whether you like it or not. All your desperate pleas get lost in the wind, because absolutely nobody cares about your opinion on the matter.

[Gary Childress]

Laws made by religions can be immoral if they don't meet basic conceptions of morality such as fairness.

So, one definition for morality is immoral, if it does not satisfy the requirements of another definition .... which one? Where is that other definition documented?

Feel free to use ChatGPT to produce a ruling based on that other definition.

Are you suggesting that any and all moral claims are equal? So, for example, saying that God gave land to your people and therefore you have a right to kick others off of it who lived there prior is just as accurate or fair a claim as saying that genocide is immoral? Are there not false moralities preached by some religions that unfairly victimize others?

If one demographic gets inordinately punished more than another in something caused by both then it's very plainly unjust.

In that case, nature is unjust, but who exactly cares? Women can get pregnant. Men cannot. Feel free to complain about that all you want.

Those who are unfairly victimized generally care. Those who benefit at another's expense and justify it simply because they like the preferential treatment are being immoral. Men are just as responsible for adultery as women are and are just as able to support their children from adultery as women (if not more so in the case of Islamic countries where economic opportunities favor males).

[godelian]

Are you suggesting that any and all moral claims are equal?

Morality is deductive.

T ⊢ S

Meaning :

Sentence S is a deductive necessity from moral theory T.

You never mention what T you try to deduce anything from. Hence, whenever you come up with sentence S, it is not receivable, simply because you did not specify T.

You see, there is a good reason why corporate employers do not want to recruit graduates from the liberal arts. It's simple. Mere word salads don't work. They are pointless in the real world.

If you were a programmer, your programs would be inferior because no compiler is willing to compile them. They would not even be considered programs at all.

You see, word salads are simply too easy to produce. That is why nobody respects them.

You cannot stick to even the most basic formalisms. What you are concocting, is objectively and mechanically to be designated as bullshit.

Try to do something difficult for a change!

[Gary Childress]

Are you suggesting that any and all moral claims are equal?

Morality is deductive.

T ⊢ S

Meaning :

Sentence S is a deductive necessity from moral theory T.

You never mention what T you try to deduce anything from. Hence, whenever you come up with sentence S, it is not receivable, simply because you did not specify T.

You see, there is a good reason why corporate employers do not want to recruit graduates from the liberal arts. It's simple. Mere word salads don't work. They are pointless in the real world.

If you were a programmer, your programs would be inferior because no compiler is willing to compile them. They would not even be considered programs at all.

You see, word salads are simply too easy to produce. That is why nobody respects them.

You cannot stick to even the most basic formalisms. What you are concocting, is objectively and mechanically to be designated as bullshit.

Try to do something difficult for a change!

Wow, you're a computer programmer! Congrats! What is the moral theory that gives us the necessary and deductive statement that children born outside of wedlock ought to be impoverished for no fault of their own? That two people can have a child, and the one most suited to support it is not required to lift a finger to assist, because, unlike his partner, he's somehow exonerated from supporting the child.

[godelian]

What is the moral theory that gives us the necessary and deductive statement that children born outside of wedlock ought to be impoverished for no fault of their own? That two people can have a child, and the one most suited to support it is not required to lift a finger to assist, because, unlike his partner, he's somehow exonerated from supporting the child.

I have already answered that question.

In terms of T ⊢ S:

Islam ⊢ S

I have already demonstrated that ChatGPT objectively and mechanically deducts the following logic sentence:

ChatGPT: Do men bear the burden of childcare for any child that they produce outside of marriage, according to Islamic law?

In Islamic law (Sharia), the issue of paternity and responsibility for children born outside of marriage is quite specific and based on classical jurisprudence. Here's a clear breakdown:

1. Legitimacy and Paternity
A child born outside of wedlock (i.e., due to zina, or unlawful sexual intercourse) is considered illegitimate in traditional Islamic jurisprudence.
The biological father is not legally recognized as the father in terms of inheritance, lineage (nasab), or custodial rights and responsibilities.
The child is legally attributed only to the mother.

Key Hadith (Sahih Muslim, etc.):
"The child is for the [marital] bed, and the adulterer gets nothing."
This hadith forms the basis for denying legal paternity to a man in cases of zina.

2. Financial Responsibility
Because the biological father is not considered the legal father in Islamic law, he is not obligated to financially support or provide for the child.
The mother, or her family, typically bears the responsibility for the child.

Furthermore, I repeat, nobody gives a flying fuck about what you believe about moral theory T1 or T2 or T3 and so on.

ChatGPT defeats every liberal-arts graduate in determining the truth of any deduction T ⊢ S.

That is why liberal arts graduates are fundamentally useless. They cannot do anything that a machine cannot do better and cheaper. Seriously, what do we need all these idiots for?

[Immanuel Can]

Islam is authoritative for Muslims...

Well, only for those people who've already been fooled by Islam; and Zoroastrianism is authoritative for Zoroastrians, and Hinduism is authoritative for Hindus, and Judaism is authoritative for Jews, and Satanism for Satanists, and Marxism for Marxists...but you're begging the question: why SHOULD Islam be granted any authority by anybody, given that it's record of family destruction is so obvious?

Two billion people

About 1.9 billion, actually, and Christianity has 2.3 billion. Not that it makes the slightest difference to the question of the truth or falsehood of what anybody believes. A belief isn't justified by the number of people taken into it.

All your desperate pleas

I don't have any pleas. I just want to know what you think makes Islam any authority on families, given the many wicked things they do to them, from abusing children to beating women to using both as human shields in war. What gives Islam any reason to be proud of its record? If they think they have any moral high ground on that, I can't imagine what it would be, can you?

But I can see you won't answer the question. Even you are ashamed of Islam's record, obviously.

[Gary Childress]

What is the moral theory that gives us the necessary and deductive statement that children born outside of wedlock ought to be impoverished for no fault of their own? That two people can have a child, and the one most suited to support it is not required to lift a finger to assist, because, unlike his partner, he's somehow exonerated from supporting the child.

I have already answered that question.

In terms of T ⊢ S:

Islam ⊢ S

I have already demonstrated that ChatGPT objectively and mechanically deducts the following logic sentence:

ChatGPT: Do men bear the burden of childcare for any child that they produce outside of marriage, according to Islamic law?

In Islamic law (Sharia), the issue of paternity and responsibility for children born outside of marriage is quite specific and based on classical jurisprudence. Here's a clear breakdown:

1. Legitimacy and Paternity
A child born outside of wedlock (i.e., due to zina, or unlawful sexual intercourse) is considered illegitimate in traditional Islamic jurisprudence.
The biological father is not legally recognized as the father in terms of inheritance, lineage (nasab), or custodial rights and responsibilities.
The child is legally attributed only to the mother.

Key Hadith (Sahih Muslim, etc.):
"The child is for the [marital] bed, and the adulterer gets nothing."
This hadith forms the basis for denying legal paternity to a man in cases of zina.

2. Financial Responsibility
Because the biological father is not considered the legal father in Islamic law, he is not obligated to financially support or provide for the child.
The mother, or her family, typically bears the responsibility for the child.

Furthermore, I repeat, nobody gives a flying fuck about what you believe about moral theory T1 or T2 or T3 and so on.

ChatGPT defeats every liberal-arts graduate in determining the truth of any deduction T ⊢ S.

That is why liberal arts graduates are fundamentally useless. They cannot do anything that a machine cannot do better and cheaper. Seriously, what do we need all these idiots for?

Logic doesn't prove premises. If you start with the premise that Islam is the right moral code, then you're pretty much skipping the whole enterprise of metaethics. It's like you found Islam and now think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread because you have no way of evaluating Islam from outside of itself. Ugh.

[godelian]

About 1.9 billion, actually, and Christianity has 2.3 billion. Not that it makes the slightest difference to the question of the truth or falsehood of what anybody believes. A belief isn't justified by the number of people taken into it.

The number of believers is a measure for its relevance, not its truth. Concerning its truth, if it is consistent, a theory has a model, i.e. a structure representing its truth.

If you want to understand the notion of truth in deductive systems, you'd better read up on Tarski's semantic theory of truth. Otherwise, you are going to end up saying nonsense about the very notion of truth.

Given its decentralized interpretation, Islam is guaranteed to be eventually consistent, just like a blockchain is. It is the decentralization itself that guarantees eventual consistency.

But I can see you won't answer the question. Even you are ashamed of Islam's record, obviously.

Not at all.

I find Islamic moral theory eminently useful. I don't think anyone is ever "ashamed" of a moral theory. That would be a category error.

In fact, Islamic moral theory seems to be the only moral theory that manages to withstand mathematical scrutiny.

I am only willing to consider mathematical arguments. I consider liberal-arts word salads to be merely the bullshit produced by people who are not capable of mathematics.

[godelian]

Logic doesn't prove premises. If you start with the premise that Islam is the right moral code, then you're pretty much skipping the whole enterprise of metaethics.

We already have a metatheory about deductive axiomatic systems. It is part of metamathematics.

It is considered "hard" and demanding. That is why it is respected.

Anything based on mere liberal-arts word salads cannot compete with that, because it is considered easy. Everybody and their little sister can do that. That is why nobody respects it.

[Immanuel Can]

About 1.9 billion, actually, and Christianity has 2.3 billion. Not that it makes the slightest difference to the question of the truth or falsehood of what anybody believes. A belief isn't justified by the number of people taken into it.

The number of believers is a measure for its relevance, not its truth.

No, it's not. A belief can be totally irrelevant to reality, and yet have many believers. At one time, everybody thought the world was flat.

Given its decentralized interpretation, Islam is guaranteed to be eventually consistent,

That's stupid. "Decentralized" just means "incoherent and inconsistent," in the case of Islam. I've met Sunnis and Shia, and they hate each other viciously, and disagree on everything...except maybe how much they hate all the other sects of Islam.

But I can see you won't answer the question. Even you are ashamed of Islam's record, obviously.

Not at all.

Then justify your use of it as a superior view of the family, when it does all these wicked things I've listed.

[godelian]

At one time, everybody thought the world was flat.

Gemini: Does Euclidean geometry treat its context as flat?

Yes, Euclidean geometry treats its context as flat.

Here's why:

* Plane Geometry: Euclidean geometry is often referred to as "plane geometry" because it primarily deals with shapes and figures on a flat, two-dimensional surface called a plane.

In essence, Euclidean geometry provides a framework for understanding space that is consistent with our everyday experience of a flat or uncurved environment.

A flat plane is a reasonable approximation for the context of a relatively small surface on a globe. Most engineering and technology is still essentially Euclidean.

The formulas become substantially more complicated if we take into account the globe's curvature. So, we simply don't do that, if we don't have to.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with classical Euclidean geometry. It is a simplification that still works like a charm and which is still in widespread use today. In that sense, we still behave and think as if the world would be flat.

[Immanuel Can]

At one time, everybody thought the world was flat.

Gemini: Does Euclidean geometry treat its context as flat?

Smoke screen.

You can’t defend Islam’s record, so you won’t talk about it…or even admit it to yourself. Islam has no right to tell anybody about “the family."

[godelian]

You can’t defend Islam’s record, so you won’t talk about it…or even admit it to yourself. Islam has no right to tell anybody about “the family."

A moral theory such as Islam does not have a "record". You are confusing it with a government. In fact, you are incredibly confused. Of course, a moral theory can have rules about "the family". What are you even talking about?

[Immanuel Can]

You can’t defend Islam’s record, so you won’t talk about it…or even admit it to yourself. Islam has no right to tell anybody about “the family."

A moral theory such as Islam does not have a "record". You are confusing it with a government.

Sharia isn't merely "a moral theory." In fact, it has no moral "theory" at all. It's a totalitarian system of governance, as well as a religious belief system. Islam makes no distinction between the two. It demands "submission" to the rule of Islam, not merely belief, and not moral rightness. And every Islamist, including you, knows full well that fact.

Here's Islam's record: bachi baza. Blowing up children. Using familes as "human shields." Revenge rapes. Treating women as worth less than half of a man. Female circumcision. Forced and child "marriages." Wife beating. October 7th. Polygamy.

These things are not hidden. We have the evidence. And you know we all do.

Now, why does an ideology that sponsors those things get to lecture the West about "family values"?

[godelian]

You can’t defend Islam’s record, so you won’t talk about it…or even admit it to yourself. Islam has no right to tell anybody about “the family."

A moral theory such as Islam does not have a "record". You are confusing it with a government.

Sharia isn't merely "a moral theory." In fact, it has no moral "theory" at all. It's a totalitarian system of governance, as well as a religious belief system. Islam makes no distinction between the two. It demands "submission" to the rule of Islam, not merely belief, and not moral rightness. And every Islamist, including you, knows full well that fact.

Here's Islam's record: bachi baza. Blowing up children. Using familes as "human shields." Revenge rapes. Treating women as worth less than half of a man. Female circumcision. Forced and child "marriages." Wife beating. October 7th. Polygamy.

These things are not hidden. We have the evidence. And you know we all do.

Now, why does an ideology that sponsors those things get to lecture the West about "family values"?

So, you make 35 claims in 5 sentences. This inevitably means that you do not provide justification for any single claim in particular. So, what you write, is necessarily unsubstantiated. It is useless to do that. Instead, focus on one claim and then substantiate it extensively.