Re-posting from what I said on facebook:
Everything about why this crime happened in the first place and how it is being taken to justice is just wrong....civil societies shouldn't encourage retribution but they also shouldn't create an environment where the government has the problem of acid attacks that needs to be stopped. Note, the image of the woman may not be something some of you want to see so I took the thumbnail off...it's pretty bad.
Quote
An Iranian man found guilty of using acid to blind a woman who refused to marry him now will have the same done to him as punishment — and she'll be the one who carries out the sentence, her lawyer says.
The lawyer said that at noon Saturday, Ameneh Bahrami would drop acid in both eyes of Majid Movahedi, 30, after he is rendered unconscious at a judiciary hospital in Tehran, The Guardian newspaper reported, citing Iranian media.
Bahrami was disfigured and blinded in 2004 when Movahedi threw acid in her face as she returned home from work, the Guardian reported. After Movahedi admitted to the attack, Bahrami asked a court to order an eye-for-an-eye retribution, under the Islamic law system of "qisas."
The court did so in November 2008, calling for five drops of sulfuric acid to be placed in each of his eyes.
Only on msnbc.com
Race a factor in STD testing of young women
Research shows setback for lab-made stem cells
Cubans dream of being tourists — abroad
Follow the Taliban — now on Twitter
War for American hearts and minds rages over Islam
As oil prices drop, Fed should get credit
How computers got us started in space
Iranian officials have endorsed the sentence, hoping to stop an increase in acid attacks, the Guardian said.
The Washington Post reported that human rights groups and the British government had asked Bahrami to pardon Movahedi but that she had refused.
"I have been receiving numerous phone calls from Iranian human rights organizations based abroad," Bahrami told the Post in a phone interview Friday. "They are pressuring me to pardon him. But I won't do that."
Iran's government helped Bahrami, who has an electronics degree and worked in a medical engineering company before the attack, moved to Spain, where she underwent a series of unsuccessful operations.
She briefly recovered half vision in her right eye in 2007 but an infection blinded her again, the Guardian said.
Bahrami, now in her 30s, wrote a book about her ordeal, "Eye for an Eye," which was published in Germany.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43029928/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa (see source for picture of woman...somewhat graphic)
I liked your post with the kitten better.
More baby animals, less fundamentalist psychos please.
It's both shocking and terrifying to actually see the old adage, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," played out live. It's more shocking still that this adage was lost on those responsible. You'd think this is a phrase which crosses geographical and linguistic boundaries.
Forgive the melodramatic tone, but it can be hard at times to live in this world. The nice thing about being an atheist, though, is we have no illusions about an afterlife, so we're inspired to do what we can to make this world a better place. The current Iranian regime is already on shaky ground. There was a presidential election protest that nearly grew into a revolution 2 years ago. With all of the revolutions in the Middle East against corrupt and extremist governments, I believe it's only a matter of time before Iran is faced with true revolution. Perhaps the best response to this terrifying story is to ask: "What can I do to help Iranian moderates?"
The quicker we are rid of religion the better.
As barbaric as it is I think it would be worse if the guy just walked free.
Ye I'd have to say the issue of women being burnt, killed or blinded by males troubles me more.
Quote from: Tank on May 14, 2011, 08:12:04 AM
The quicker we are rid of religion the better.
I'm not sure if this is a religious issue.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 14, 2011, 09:37:19 AM
I'm not sure if this is a religious issue.
I think I understand what you are getting at, but as religion is at the core of Iran's world view and political system I don't see how or why it can not be held culpable to some extent for this sort of behaviour.
I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.
Quote from: Tank on May 14, 2011, 10:08:04 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 14, 2011, 09:37:19 AM
I'm not sure if this is a religious issue.
I think I understand what you are getting at, but as religion is at the core of Iran's world view and political system I don't see how or why it can not be held culpable to some extent for this sort of behaviour.
OK I'll be Pudding, Defender Of The Faithful for a while.
It's not an original argument, that it's the culture of people not religion that causes these atrocities. Ancient goat herders live a harsh life, treat their woman harshly and criminals cruelly. Plonk a religion down on them and they continue to live much as they did before. I see this line of thought as precluding the argument that religion improves human nature, maybe I'm just not flexible enough to be a good defender of the faithful.
Oh I see where I've gone wrong, religion does improve people, but not entirely because they are so very bad, so the bad stuff can be blamed on culture. The holy books can set out what behaviour should be punished and how. This is great isn't it? Everyone knows what the rules are and it never needs changing 'cause god made it and he made it to last. Followers of a religion of love shouldn't enjoy killing, but if god says they deserve it, well it's just wrong to do god's work half heartedly.
I hear atheists complain all the time, "these theists are following the archaic rules of ancient goat herders, it's time they evolved". But when we embrace modern marketing, weapons, hair pieces or acids they still complain. There's just no pleasing some people.
Quote from: Cecilie on May 14, 2011, 11:25:59 AM
I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.
Why?
Had he done this in the west we would have locked him in a small cage with other violent men for months to years on end. I fail to see how that is inherently enlightened while this is somehow inherently savage and barbaric.
Quote from: Will37 on May 15, 2011, 11:36:13 AM
Quote from: Cecilie on May 14, 2011, 11:25:59 AM
I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.
Why?
Had he done this in the west we would have locked him in a small cage with other violent men for months to years on end. I fail to see how that is inherently enlightened while this is somehow inherently savage and barbaric.
Actually the prisons here are pretty comfortable. Or so I've heard.
Quote from: Will on May 14, 2011, 06:56:43 AM
It's both shocking and terrifying to actually see the old adage, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," played out live. It's more shocking still that this adage was lost on those responsible. You'd think this is a phrase which crosses geographical and linguistic boundaries.
The quote sounds nice. And it is perfectly consistent with the religious would views of an Indian ascetic who would have viewed it as morally preferable for every Jew in europe to be exterminated rather than they return the violence of the Nazi's with violence of their own. I'd rather live in a world where the Jews of Europe fight back.
Anyway. I don't see anything sad about this. This man disfigured and blinded this woman because she rejected him. Being blinded as punishment for blinding somebody is, by definition, just. That is to say that it is fair. More importantly the regime is doing this to make an example out of this man to stop the growing trend of acid attacks in Iran. Good. Women shouldn't have to live in fear of this. I see nothing wrong with sending a clear signal to young Iranian men that if they intend to deal with rejection in this way they can expect a response of equal severity.
Violence is an inherent part of the state. This is an explicit example of that violence. I don't see what's noble about hiding out violence and pretending that we're somehow enlightened because we've decided that our punishment of choice is locking individuals in a small cage for years on end.
Quote from: Cecilie on May 15, 2011, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: Will37 on May 15, 2011, 11:36:13 AM
Quote from: Cecilie on May 14, 2011, 11:25:59 AM
I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.
Why?
Had he done this in the west we would have locked him in a small cage with other violent men for months to years on end. I fail to see how that is inherently enlightened while this is somehow inherently savage and barbaric.
Actually the prisons here are pretty comfortable. Or so I've heard.
I think there's probably a lot to be said for Europe's emphasis on rehabilitation. At least for certain offenses. But no matter how humane your prisons are compared to those here you still have at bottom a system whereby men and women are forcibly removed from the streets and taken away from their famlies and locked away. You can dress it up all you like. And there's a lot to be said for some of it, but you still have a system maintaine by violence or the threat of violence. I'm ok with that. But if some people aren't then they need to work for the transition away from the modern state system as a whole.
Personally I think that state sectioned mutilation is a bad thing, irrespective of the justification in any particular case. It has taken hundreds of years to rein in state sanctioned mutilation in the form of barbaric punishments including the death penalty. The reason that punishments such as this, cutting off of hands and the death penalty are now no longer acceptable in the civilised world is that you can't undo the punishment if the accused is found guilty in error.
So while an individual may feel that a given punishment is just and therefore justifiable society as a whole should take responsibility for the actions of the state. If this were not the case I would be at liberty to shoot the driver who cuts me up if I wanted to as I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a person who endangers my life and the life of my family. I would be doing society a favour by removing a dangerous element.
There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?
My $0.02
Quote from: Tank link=topic=7467.msg 113661#msg 113661 date=1305461518
There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?
My $0.02
Because torture is
not the best way to get information out of people and whatever information you do get is unreliable. It's gratuitous violence and can be ultimately pointless if the goal is interrogation.
But this case is not one of interrogation but some form of justice. I think the woman who was blinded and disfigured has the right. And, if you read a little bit more, it seems that the guy is only going to have acid dropped on one and and while under anesthesia.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 15, 2011, 08:44:13 PM
Quote from: Tank link=topic=7467.msg 113661#msg 113661 date=1305461518
There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?
My $0.02
Because torture is not the best way to get information out of people and whatever information you do get is unreliable. It's gratuitous violence and can be ultimately pointless if the goal is interrogation.
But this case is not one of interrogation but some form of justice. I think the woman who was blinded and disfigured has the right. And, if you read a little bit more, it seems that the guy is only going to have acid dropped on one and and while under anesthesia.
The point about torture was that once the state is given permission to carry out physical punishments of a barbaric nature on it's citizens then torture is one possible result of that.
I agree that torture is not generally a reasonable approach to extracting accurate information, but should one just want to get a scapegoat and tick a box for a crime solved then it's very attractive. It can also give the perpetrator a great sense of power which we know is very seductive to people who crave power, e.g. politicians.
I don't agree with state sanctioned mutilation, however just it would appear to be.
Quote from: Tank on May 15, 2011, 09:03:59 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 15, 2011, 08:44:13 PM
Quote from: Tank link=topic=7467.msg 113661#msg 113661 date=1305461518
There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?
My $0.02
Because torture is not the best way to get information out of people and whatever information you do get is unreliable. It's gratuitous violence and can be ultimately pointless if the goal is interrogation.
But this case is not one of interrogation but some form of justice. I think the woman who was blinded and disfigured has the right. And, if you read a little bit more, it seems that the guy is only going to have acid dropped on one and and while under anesthesia.
The point about torture was that once the state is given permission to carry out physical punishments of a barbaric nature on it's citizens then torture is one possible result of that.
I agree that torture is not generally a reasonable approach to extracting accurate information, but should one just want to get a scapegoat and tick a box for a crime solved then it's very attractive. It can also give the perpetrator a great sense of power which we know is very seductive to people who crave power, e.g. politicians.
I don't agree with state sanctioned mutilation, however just it would appear to be.
I think that maybe a more reasonable approach would be to ask the victim for a list of possible punishments that she feels would give her a sense of closure, such as being blinded in one eye, having acid thrown on a part of his choosing, spending time in jail or paying her a life long pension for instance and have him choose which. That way the 'eye for an eye' would apply in its non literal form and she will feel that justice has been made.
I just realised that the guy who threw acid on her face is more probably insane rather than sadistic (in which I'm all for an eye for an eye).
Quote from: Tank on May 15, 2011, 01:11:58 PM
Personally I think that state sectioned mutilation is a bad thing, irrespective of the justification in any particular case. It has taken hundreds of years to rein in state sanctioned mutilation in the form of barbaric punishments including the death penalty. The reason that punishments such as this, cutting off of hands and the death penalty are now no longer acceptable in the civilised world is that you can't undo the punishment if the accused is found guilty in error.
So while an individual may feel that a given punishment is just and therefore justifiable society as a whole should take responsibility for the actions of the state. If this were not the case I would be at liberty to shoot the driver who cuts me up if I wanted to as I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a person who endangers my life and the life of my family. I would be doing society a favour by removing a dangerous element.
You can't undo any punishment. You can't give back to somebody the ten years of their life that they spent in prison. You can't undo the pshycological trauma of being taken away from everything familiar locked in a prison.
QuoteThere is also the 'slippery slope' argument.
If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?
My $0.02
Because they are a suspect. The state can't punish someone for something it hasn't determined that they are actually guilty of.
More importantly, this is Iran that we are talking about. There is no slope for them to slide down. They're already there. Many aspects of Sharia I do not find compatable with modernity, but this particular punishment strikes me as totally fair.
Quote from: Will37 on May 16, 2011, 01:30:15 AM
More importantly, this is Iran that we are talking about. There is no slope for them to slide down. They're already there. Many aspects of Sharia I do not find compatible with modernity, but this particular punishment strikes me as totally fair.
The think the main problem with an eye for an eye though is that the victim degrades themselves to perpetrators level. It is fair, but no stable society can base itself on it because there will always be those who actively go out of their way to intentionally harm others.
If I personally feel certain people to be repulsive and do things that I think are revolting such as crime (even those playing at being criminals), I wouldn't want to lower myself to their level by doing what they do...though it is satisfying. I actually feel the strong need to distance myself from what they are and represent.
I have mixed feelings on the whole eye for an eye thing.
Quote from: Will37 on May 16, 2011, 01:30:15 AM
Quote from: Tank on May 15, 2011, 01:11:58 PM
Personally I think that state sectioned mutilation is a bad thing, irrespective of the justification in any particular case. It has taken hundreds of years to rein in state sanctioned mutilation in the form of barbaric punishments including the death penalty. The reason that punishments such as this, cutting off of hands and the death penalty are now no longer acceptable in the civilised world is that you can't undo the punishment if the accused is found guilty in error.
So while an individual may feel that a given punishment is just and therefore justifiable society as a whole should take responsibility for the actions of the state. If this were not the case I would be at liberty to shoot the driver who cuts me up if I wanted to as I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a person who endangers my life and the life of my family. I would be doing society a favour by removing a dangerous element.
You can't undo any punishment. You can't give back to somebody the ten years of their life that they spent in prison. You can't undo the pshycological trauma of being taken away from everything familiar locked in a prison.
Agreed. But while you can compensate and acknowledge the injustice of a prison sentence you can't do the same if you have hung somebody.
Quote from: Will37 on May 16, 2011, 01:30:15 AMQuoteThere is also the 'slippery slope' argument.
If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?
My $0.02
Because they are a suspect. The state can't punish someone for something it hasn't determined that they are actually guilty of.
More importantly, this is Iran that we are talking about. There is no slope for them to slide down. They're already there. Many aspects of Sharia I do not find compatable with modernity, but this particular punishment strikes me as totally fair.
I wasn't discussing Iran in particular but why mutilation as a punishment is not acceptable in a civilised society. I agree it's technically fair, but that still does not make it socially acceptable. Just because he committed a horrendous crime does not hand society an equivalent mandate in my opinion. Society should be held to the highest values of behaviour and should set an example of what is acceptable behaviour. If you don't want citizens throwing acid around then you don't do it yourself, or sanction the state to do it either.
http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/news/201105/41091.php
Apparently they've changed the sentence.
It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.
I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.
I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.
The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.
Fuck 'em all.
Hmm... I can't quite figure out where I stand on this... ???
Quote from: karadan on May 17, 2011, 03:11:57 PM
The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.
Yes.
Quote from: karadan on May 17, 2011, 03:11:57 PM
It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.
I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.
I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.
The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.
Fuck 'em all.
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
Quote from: Will37 on May 17, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.
thanks.
Quote from: Will37 on May 17, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: karadan on May 17, 2011, 03:11:57 PM
It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.
I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.
I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.
The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.
Fuck 'em all.
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
I wouldn't call it bigotry, tolerance has its limits, in a sense by definition.
Twisted by their religion or twisters of their religion I don't know, but it's not hard to find sanctioned brutality in the divinely inspired tomes.
After we solve our oil dependency problem opium would be worth a thought.
Quote from: Whitney on May 17, 2011, 11:19:00 PM
Quote from: Will37 on May 17, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.
thanks.
I didn't say he was wrong. His rantings were too vague to be exactly called wrong. I said the bolded comments are bigoted. If that needed further explaining I apologize. In some corners, referring to a part of the world as an enclave of savages who are unable to grasp modernity due to their twisted religion would be considered bigoted. If this requires further elaboration I'd be happy to oblige.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 18, 2011, 02:45:09 AM
Quote from: Will37 on May 17, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: karadan on May 17, 2011, 03:11:57 PM
It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.
I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.
I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.
The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.
Fuck 'em all.
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
I wouldn't call it bigotry, tolerance has its limits, in a sense by definition.
Twisted by their religion or twisters of their religion I don't know, but it's not hard to find sanctioned brutality in the divinely inspired tomes.
After we solve our oil dependency problem opium would be worth a thought.
I would call it bigotry. He didn't remark on the specifics of Sharia' law he was making comments about the people of Iran in particular and the Muslim world in general.
Quote from: Will37 on May 19, 2011, 11:04:21 PM
Quote from: Whitney on May 17, 2011, 11:19:00 PM
Quote from: Will37 on May 17, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.
thanks.
I didn't say he was wrong. His rantings were too vague to be exactly called wrong. I said the bolded comments are bigoted. If that needed further explaining I apologize. In some corners, referring to a part of the world as an enclave of savages who are unable to grasp modernity due to their twisted religion would be considered bigoted. If this requires further elaboration I'd be happy to oblige.
Considering that he mentioned specific practices which he is ranting against and not simply that he hates them for living in a certain place or having a certain religion (though the religion is mentioned as the root cause of the problem) it wasn't an example of bigotry so, yes, you need to elaborate. From my view he is claiming that the teachings of a backwards religion have ingrained such horrible ideas into a culture that he sees no possible cure to their social ills and has given up on even bothering to try to help them anymore...saying the same with stronger rant wording (as done with the post in question) doesn't bring it into bigotry by any common contextual use of the word.
Quote from: Whitney on May 20, 2011, 12:02:15 AM
Quote from: Will37 on May 19, 2011, 11:04:21 PM
Quote from: Whitney on May 17, 2011, 11:19:00 PM
Quote from: Will37 on May 17, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry.
When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.
thanks.
I didn't say he was wrong. His rantings were too vague to be exactly called wrong. I said the bolded comments are bigoted. If that needed further explaining I apologize. In some corners, referring to a part of the world as an enclave of savages who are unable to grasp modernity due to their twisted religion would be considered bigoted. If this requires further elaboration I'd be happy to oblige.
Considering that he mentioned specific practices which he is ranting against and not simply that he hates them for living in a certain place or having a certain religion (though the religion is mentioned as the root cause of the problem) it wasn't an example of bigotry so, yes, you need to elaborate. From my view he is claiming that the teachings of a backwards religion have ingrained such horrible ideas into a culture that he sees no possible cure to their social ills and has given up on even bothering to try to help them anymore...saying the same with stronger rant wording (as done with the post in question) doesn't bring it into bigotry by any common contextual use of the word.
He did mention specific practices. And I did not fault him for being outraged by particular practices. I faulted him for his transition to ranting about the inferiority about the group of people who practiced the religion that arguable permitted those practices.
Quote from: Will37 on May 20, 2011, 02:22:06 AM
He did mention specific practices. And I did not fault him for being outraged by particular practices. I faulted him for his transition to ranting about the inferiority about the group of people who practiced the religion that arguable permitted those practices.
how is it bigotry to consider people who would allow such practices to be inferior?
I think skinheads and neo-natzis are inferior...would you consider that bigotry? If so, you are throwing around a loaded word too easily.
Quote from: Whitney on May 20, 2011, 02:52:11 AM
Quote from: Will37 on May 20, 2011, 02:22:06 AM
He did mention specific practices. And I did not fault him for being outraged by particular practices. I faulted him for his transition to ranting about the inferiority about the group of people who practiced the religion that arguable permitted those practices.
how is it bigotry to consider people who would allow such practices to be inferior?
I think skinheads and neo-natzis are inferior...would you consider that bigotry? If so, you are throwing around a loaded word too easily.
I think considering anyone 'inferior' to you as a human being more than a little self-rightous. Nevertheless, there is a difference between being raised in a particular faith tradition and self-selecting to identify with a political group for the specific purpose of rebelling against the prevailing norms of tolerance. That is if you consider being a Muslim as comparable to being a skin-head. Which it seems you do. Depending on who it is you have in mind when you refer to individuals who 'allow' the practices. This young woman was included in his set of savages. Is she part of the inferior class?
Quote from: Will37 on May 20, 2011, 03:53:51 AM
I think considering anyone 'inferior' to you as a human being more than a little self-rightous. Nevertheless, there is a difference between being raised in a particular faith tradition and self-selecting to identify with a political group for the specific purpose of rebelling against the prevailing norms of tolerance. That is if you consider being a Muslim as comparable to being a skin-head. Which it seems you do. Depending on who it is you have in mind when you refer to individuals who 'allow' the practices. This young woman was included in his set of savages. Is she part of the inferior class?
I was merely attempting to get you to actually explain why you were calling someone a bigot, which you finally kinda did. Me asking questions and disagreeing with your use of bigot doesn't automatically mean I agree with what the other person said. I actually don't agree with either of you. I just don't like the word bigot to be thrown around without adequate explanation...the loaded nature of the word requires explanation on a forum where civility is honored.
Quote from: Whitney on May 20, 2011, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Will37 on May 20, 2011, 03:53:51 AM
I think considering anyone 'inferior' to you as a human being more than a little self-rightous. Nevertheless, there is a difference between being raised in a particular faith tradition and self-selecting to identify with a political group for the specific purpose of rebelling against the prevailing norms of tolerance. That is if you consider being a Muslim as comparable to being a skin-head. Which it seems you do. Depending on who it is you have in mind when you refer to individuals who 'allow' the practices. This young woman was included in his set of savages. Is she part of the inferior class?
I was merely attempting to get you to actually explain why you were calling someone a bigot, which you finally kinda did. Me asking questions and disagreeing with your use of bigot doesn't automatically mean I agree with what the other person said. I actually don't agree with either of you. I just don't like the word bigot to be thrown around without adequate explanation...the loaded nature of the word requires explanation on a forum where civility is honored.
You're right. I apologize.
I think something as simple as eye for an eye should be done more often. Have you ever done research on jails in America? They're a fucking joke.
Why do you think we have so much crime?
This woman was ruined because she didn't want to marry him? Fuck him! This kind of attack is unforgivable. Have you ever known someone who has been attacked or raped? It destroys you.
So they get "justice" by sitting in a cozy jail, watching judge Judy, eating free meals and playing hoops in the courtyard? No, thank you.
I believe this woman has been entilted to this, and has gotten just a tiny comfort in this billshit world.