I am not going to repeat it again. You understood clearly what I meant. If you want to have a shallow understanding of the world that is your problem.
Pessar jan, your whole existence on these boards have been shallow from day one. Right now you are getting slapped in a field that call your own field which i know is nothing but bullshit because i have not even started and you are already losing because you simply never had anything to do with liberalism in your life let alone writing a thesis containing 400000 words. You are talking such a shallow bullshit that you cant even follow it yourself.
.
I know you are trying to drag me into discussion to point conceal the weakness of your argument. However, since you are trying to I am going to answer you. Firstly, nobody is my hero. I do not have heroes. These are just philosophers with ideas through which they tried to explain societies
Second, khob ke chi? So what if I talked about Marx in other thread and here about Lock? two different discussions. I am not praising neither; non of them serve as some sort of God for me. Also, Locke' natural right and natural law are irrelevant to this discussion, although I agree with you about the his ignorance towards history. Still, irrelevant.
You agree with me about Lockes ignorance towards history? Hehe...i dont need a bisavaad to agree with me on anything because at the end you are not even able to see the clear connection here although i provided an explanation as for why liberalism cant be a solution to get rid of islam as a ruling ideology. Everything is there, you could go, read and understand it, or you can come on here and call everything irrelevant that you simply are not able to understand.
again, these points are irrelevant, although you are right.
I know i am right. I also know you are not into these stuff. You even lack the basic knowlege about an issue which you called "your field". Khob cheraa doroogh migi pedar jaan? Che lozoomi daare? Is it funny to get spanked and ridiculed by someone who doesnt even call this field his own field of research? I a few tell you you lack the very basics in this regard. Just going and pick up a few names in internet doesnt cut it. You need to able to analyse, you need to have the ability to see things in context and perspective. You lack all these basic abilities and even more.
Liberalism is a broad tradition. We have libertarians, classical liberals, progressive liberals, and many others. Not all of them believe in the jungle you mentioned.
Na baba? Who told you that? Wikipedia? ...shallow, just shallow
A good example is Iran where a vast majority of population is already doing it. That stronger thing that you are talking about is what I was trying to point out few earlier threads. Industrialization, urbanization, urban middle class, education, and then questioning absolutism. In fact, you, yourself and thousand of other Iranians question the relevance of Islam is perfect example of this.
senseless bullshit. We are talking about the term "liberalism" and how you carelessly made use of. I am on record explaining to you that liberalism provides some good and some real bad ideas. I am on record explaining you that liberalism need pre-work, needs a certain ground to be based on. liberalism needs evolution. You cant skip two steps in process of cultural and political evolution and ask for liberalism to come and all of a sudden face or even replace islam. Islamic societies with many people heavily believing in a tough to change religion like Islam, do not provide that ground needed to implement liberalism. Look, i am still talking very clear stuff, not even deep. I am still talking the same things i have done in my very first posts abuot this issue. This is what i call a clear line of thought which you lack completely because you first of all lack the much needed knowledge about this issue and second, you lack the even more important ability to add up 2 and 2 and recognize logics. However, as a result of what i am trying to get in your head, i think Islam first has to become weak, its relevance and power needs to be reduced dramatically until we can even start talking about liberalism because liberalism is not the right tool to weaken an already ruling islam. Islam will cruch the first rays of anything that it might consider a threat. What we need to go find out is: How can we make vast majority of people disobey and disregard Islam to give other ideologys such as Liberalism a chance to survive in the first place.
What we are doing here does not change anthing in Iran. We are talking annonymosly about Islam using the opportunities of western liberalism to express our selves. That doesnt change anything for Iran and Iranians though as such a liberal opportunity and platform is not given to them to talk about the same stuff within the country and i say you first have to FIGHT for those basic rights and when the ground is set, people and government can start discussing about liberals laws.
Also, next time just dont do a quick research and come throw around something. Locke justified liberalism philosophically but it was Smith who was one of the founders of economic liberalism.
Well i think i have seen enough to know you are just another simple mind trying to spam the site with his senseless stuff. I mean you are not talking about anything meaningful here and its actually been a trademark of yours for years. Whatever you have done has been going to wikipedia and pick up two names of locke and smith without knowing what they really stood for. Even here you are talking such a shallow nonsense its unbelievable. "Locke justified liberalism philosophically and Smith was a founder of economic liberalism"!! i mean what should someone say about so much ignorance and bisavaadi? How did Smith found economic liberalism?!! So smith waited for Locke to justify the philosophical relevance of liberalism and then went on to found the economic liberalism? aslan bisavaadi az sar taa paat mibaare , vali dahanet goshaadeh...
however, this bullshit of yours wont even be enough to impress a 6 years old child. Libearlism is nothing static. The idea of liberalism is older than Locke, smith, hume...those guys constantly complemented eachother, no one of them was the clear "founder" of anything. Locke couldnt be called liberal without having liberal ideas of how economy should be run. Smith just had a clearer idea of how to do it. Its not like Adam Smith said something about economic liberalism which was completely new to the world of liberals.
I really suggest you start -for the first time in your life- reading about the things you want to throw at people because az ghadim goftan "harke laafe mardoonegi zad ke mard nist" meaning just by calling this field your field, it doesnt really become "your field". You have to earn it pessar jaan. Baa harf nemishe. Right now you are sounding like the bisavaad i always thought you are. Now try to change the image.