7 ms·

I cant reply directly as HN has blockedit. You're right but woman not being a breadwinner is no longer the social reality today. So do we change the law or go

I cant reply directly as HN has blockedit. You're right but woman not being a breadwinner is no longer the social reality today. So do we change the law or go back to the old ways ?

dragonwriter 11y ago
Aside from the substance of the discussion: > I cant reply directly as HN has blockedit. Yes, you can reply directly. Beyond a certain depth HN may not show a reply link when you view the whole thread, but you can still directly reply by clicking the direct link to the specific comment (the one that has the "5 minutes ago" or whatever the time interval is), and then the reply box will be shown. I think this is intended to make people think before replying to a very deeply nested comment as a way of curbing unproductive Ping-Pong discussions, but it seems mostly to get people to post lateral replies (that is, replies attached to a comment somewhere upthread from the comment they actually respond to), invariably complaining about the inability to reply directly, which is worse for the flow of discussion than if they just posted direct replies.
kaz1 11y ago
Whatever a woman earns -- after taking care of her primary/general responsibility of largely being the minister/secretary of (informal) education, cultural and internal affairs within the realm of a budding family -- remains with her and is not obliged to spend for the basic subsistence of the family. She still gets her inheritances. Besides, as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam presents itself as the continuation of the basic common messages that the prophets came with. The prophets came with robust messages to fix social reality (not necessarily every single aspect of it though), and they themselves were not primarily trying to fit-in and win mere popularity contests at any cost.
- tremon 11y ago
  > [..] as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam [..] I presume you mean "latest" here? The term "last" implies that Christianity and Judaism are no longer practiced today...
  - kaz1 11y ago
    Right, that would serve better for a description, in the chronological sense.
  - fineman 11y ago
    And actually that's Mormonism anyways. They were the last to be visited by god, and had the most-recent prophet, according to whom their mortal leaders speak ex-cathedra. Mormonism is even growing faster than Islam. It is the ultimate(1) Abrahamic religion. Mormonism is even truly a religion of peace. Its leader was under persecution at the time and he does not speak out for killing and injustice. 1) Judging all religions objectively by the same standard of proof.
    - kaz1 11y ago
      Mormon religion is a case in point given the timeline of its emergence. It's not clear what objective standard you have in mind, and whether any consensus can be reached on that purely through an exercise of argumentation where a lot of predispositions and other factors quite often lurk behind (it's rampant even in sciences, more so probably in soft/wet sciences: http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517 http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-an...). That point reminds me though of a particular set of standards employed by an academic on that very topic: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/528/viewall/miraculous-quran/ http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/528/viewall/miraculous...
      - fineman 11y ago
        The only objective standard possible, the words of the religions themselves, combined into one greater piece of theology. Everything is assumed true unless it conflicts a greater set of doctrine. Thus we know mormon leadership speak ex-cathedra because Smith said so, and so forth. Where things conflict however, like Mohammed's statement that he's the last prophet, obviously he's wrong because Joseph Smith, etc, meet the same criteria. Going by the truth revealed in each document, Mormon's are the closest to god - the latest, most direct, pipeline to the divine. It's essentially religious science.

I cant reply directly as HN has blockedit. You're right but woman not being a breadwinner is no longer the social reality today. So do we change the law or go back to the old ways ?

dragonwriter 11y ago

Aside from the substance of the discussion: > I cant reply directly as HN has blockedit. Yes, you can reply directly. Beyond a certain depth HN may not show a reply link when you view the whole thread, but you can still directly reply by clicking the direct link to the specific comment (the one that has the "5 minutes ago" or whatever the time interval is), and then the reply box will be shown. I think this is intended to make people think before replying to a very deeply nested comment as a way of curbing unproductive Ping-Pong discussions, but it seems mostly to get people to post lateral replies (that is, replies attached to a comment somewhere upthread from the comment they actually respond to), invariably complaining about the inability to reply directly, which is worse for the flow of discussion than if they just posted direct replies.

kaz1 11y ago

Whatever a woman earns -- after taking care of her primary/general responsibility of largely being the minister/secretary of (informal) education, cultural and internal affairs within the realm of a budding family -- remains with her and is not obliged to spend for the basic subsistence of the family. She still gets her inheritances. Besides, as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam presents itself as the continuation of the basic common messages that the prophets came with. The prophets came with robust messages to fix social reality (not necessarily every single aspect of it though), and they themselves were not primarily trying to fit-in and win mere popularity contests at any cost.

tremon 11y ago
> [..] as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam [..] I presume you mean "latest" here? The term "last" implies that Christianity and Judaism are no longer practiced today...
- kaz1 11y ago
  Right, that would serve better for a description, in the chronological sense.
- fineman 11y ago
  And actually that's Mormonism anyways. They were the last to be visited by god, and had the most-recent prophet, according to whom their mortal leaders speak ex-cathedra. Mormonism is even growing faster than Islam. It is the ultimate(1) Abrahamic religion. Mormonism is even truly a religion of peace. Its leader was under persecution at the time and he does not speak out for killing and injustice. 1) Judging all religions objectively by the same standard of proof.
  - kaz1 11y ago
    Mormon religion is a case in point given the timeline of its emergence. It's not clear what objective standard you have in mind, and whether any consensus can be reached on that purely through an exercise of argumentation where a lot of predispositions and other factors quite often lurk behind (it's rampant even in sciences, more so probably in soft/wet sciences: http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517 http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-an...). That point reminds me though of a particular set of standards employed by an academic on that very topic: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/528/viewall/miraculous-quran/ http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/528/viewall/miraculous...
    - fineman 11y ago
      The only objective standard possible, the words of the religions themselves, combined into one greater piece of theology. Everything is assumed true unless it conflicts a greater set of doctrine. Thus we know mormon leadership speak ex-cathedra because Smith said so, and so forth. Where things conflict however, like Mohammed's statement that he's the last prophet, obviously he's wrong because Joseph Smith, etc, meet the same criteria. Going by the truth revealed in each document, Mormon's are the closest to god - the latest, most direct, pipeline to the divine. It's essentially religious science.