- #36
Mallignamius
- 47
- 0
DaveC426913 said:Really? How can that be true and it be subjective at the same time?
"I judge this to be true."
Isn't that how a court system is designed?
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:Really? How can that be true and it be subjective at the same time?
DaveC426913 said:Reread your post. You said we will do the "judging" and other cultures will do the "being judged".
It wasn't convenient, I just didn't have anything to say becasue I'm not sure what your point is.Evo said:Dave, I noticed you conveniently bypassed my post.
No.Mallignamius said:"I judge this to be true."
Isn't that how a court system is designed?
No, it's obvious from my post that I object to both.DaveC426913 said:It wasn't convenient, I just didn't have anything to say becasue I'm not sure what your point is.
If I were to guess, I'd interpolate that what you object to is not that she was punished but how she was punished.
DaveC426913 said:No.
Closer: we, as a people believe that, in our best interest, it is true.
: blinks audibly :Mallignamius said:Yeah, so? What I don't understand is what you're getting at by this.
It means that those who are affected by the laws (as a people) are those who make the laws (as a people).Mallignamius said:And that's not subjective?
DaveC426913 said:: blinks audibly :
: pauses :
: blinks audibly again :
Are you telling me that you don't see anything wrong with one culture setting themselves up as the judge of other cultures?
DaveC426913 said:It means that those who are affected by the laws (as a people) are those who make the laws (as a people).
This is how a society keeps checks and balances on itself.
The trouble is, it's not so obvious. I'm trying to tease out of broad statements exactly what the objections are.Evo said:No, it's obvious from my post that I object to both.
Whoa Whoa. Me? I'm not. I didn't raise the witch hunt thing. I refuted it.Please stop trying to derail this thread with meaningless references to atrocities of hundreds of years ago. We're talking about now.
Show, using the evidence in the article being discussed, that women "have no rights" and are "less than human". If you step outside the article for your points, I will cry "straw man".If you want to tell us why it's ok that women have no rights in some countries, let's hear why you would defend that women are less than human.
Sure. Does it work both ways? Is it OK for other cultures to look West and say "that's just wrong!"Mallignamius said:No, I don't. Now, I'm not suggesting an active intervention. But what's wrong with looking at another culture and saying, "that's just wrong"? Do we not need to examine how other peoples conduct themselves and compare results? It seems to me that judging another legal system is a reasonable means of assessing where we are and how we could improve. Otherwise, it feels like being a bit more in the dark.
DaveC426913 said:Sure. Does it work both ways? Is it OK for other cultures to look West and say "that's just wrong!"
Cuz, that's what they've been screaming for decades...
DaveC426913 said:OK, I've got to go home. Doing this at work gets me fired too much. It'll take me a half hour or an hour.
DON'T ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING INTERESTING!
From this you can't find anything obvious?DaveC426913 said:The trouble is, it's not so obvious. I'm trying to tease out of broad statements exactly what the objections are.
Evo said:People arent sentenced to flogging in the US.
Women aren't treated like cattle (or worse) in the US.
That a woman is not allowed to be alone with a man that is not a relative, no matter how innocent. It's not just frowned upon, it's a crime punishable by flogging and prison! A man with a woman that is not a relative, will not be punished. And that's just in this article. Want to start a discussion on the lack of women's right in Islamic countries?Show, using the evidence in the article being discussed, that women "have no rights" and are "less than human". If you step outside the article for your points, I will cry "straw man".
I believe the morality in question can be seen by them as literally equal to religion, and is therefore morally right.Evo said:This is wrong, just because it's part of their religion, doesn't make it right.
What they've been screaming is "we are sovereign - we have the right to manage ouir own affairs, and to retain our culture WITHOUT the West coming in an stromping all over everything with capitalist shoes. Such as (you know it had to be played...) invading us."Mallignamius said:I certainly hope they do. And they do. But how would improvement eventually come forth if we (and they) just ignored what they see as atrocities?
Agreed.That is barbaric.Evo said:Objection 1) FLOGGING
Agreed. That is barbaric.Evo said:Objection 2) Women aren't treated as equal human beings, they have virtually no rights.
Agreed. That is hypocritical, if true. I did not see in the article where it said that there was NOT a comparable law for men.Evo said:That a woman is not allowed to be alone with a man that is not a relative, no matter how innocent. It's not just frowned upon, it's a crime punishable by flogging and prison! A man with a woman that is not a relative, will not be punished.
Nope. Just wanted the cards on the table. That is a much more discussable list than we had at the start.Evo said:And that's just in this article. Want to start a discussion on the lack of women's right in Islamic countries?
Their sentence was doubled too.DaveC426913 said:All I am saying is that: the article is NOT ABOUT the men - I will presume that their case is being dealt with.
The punishment is extreme for such a crime, and that only the woman is punished in such a situation, not the man, makes it even more of an unreasonable law. If it is illegal for men and women to mix, then BOTH are guilty of that crime (she was not raped by the man she was with, she was raped by other men). To punish a crime that creates no physical harm with something that does cause physical harm should be considered a human rights violation that no country should be allowed to get away with.The article is about this woman who committed a crime. Does everyone believe that Saudi Arabia has no right to impose a law upon its people that forbids the mixing of women with men that they do not know?
DaveC426913 said:What they've been screaming is "we are sovereign - we have the right to manage ouir own affairs, and to retain our culture WITHOUT the West coming in an stromping all over everything with capitalist shoes. Such as (you know it had to be played...) invading us."
Maybe you're thinking a bit too idealistically.Moonbear said:should be considered a human rights violation that no country should be allowed to get away with.
Are you saying that basic human rights should not be universal?Mk said:Maybe you're thinking a bit too idealistically.
Yes, and that is why we should be pro-active in expecting human rights everywhere. Change sometimes has to be forced. It is not right that these women should be abused, and it is not right that we should stand by, aware of these atrocities, and say nothing.Mk said:"Human rights violations" happen. Cultures of people can abhor at things that happen in other cultures. Other cultures get away with it. It's idealistic to think everybody should be happy and morally good, regardless of your moral philosophy.
Agreed. Though it's a dicey issue. It has to be balanced with the right for others to govern their own culture. Those who don't respect that are no better than thugs.Evo said:Yes, and that is why we should be pro-active in expecting human rights everywhere. Change sometimes has to be forced. It is not right that these women should be abused, and it is not right that we should stand by, aware of these atrocities, and say nothing.
Why would it be locked? It is certainly fertile ground for spirited discussion, but I don't see it getting outside of forum policy.JasonRox said:And this thread isn't locked because...?
Why?Plastic Photon said:We should go to war with them.
You've never heard of human rights?DaveC426913 said:Agreed. Though it's a dicey issue. It has to be balanced with the right for others to govern their own culture. Those who don't respect that are no better than thugs.
Mk said:"Human rights violations" happen. Cultures of people can abhor at things that happen in other cultures. Other cultures get away with it. It's idealistic to think everybody should be happy and morally good, regardless of your moral philosophy.
Evo said:Are you saying that basic human rights should not be universal?
Agreed and the UN is the place to enact universal common standards. Countries who refuse to sign up to the UN charter for human rights should be shunned by the other UN members until such time as they come into compliance.Moonbear said:It happens, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD happen, or should continue to be PERMITTED to happen. That's why there are international human rights laws, because there are still human rights violations that need to be curtailed. Beating someone for the company she keeps certainly qualifies as a human rights violation.