# CBS News' Lara Logan Sexually Assaulted During Egypt Protests



## Darth inVaders (Feb 15, 2011)

> *CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests*
> CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Separated From Her Crew And Brutally Assaulted on Day Mubarak Stepped Down
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Lara Logan in Tahrir Square moments before she was attacked on Feb. 11, 2011.  (CBS)
> ...


source: 

further reading:


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 15, 2011)

decent blonde chick hanging around anonymous males, not safe


----------



## Sora (Feb 15, 2011)

fucking horny Egyptians can't leave the hot piece of ass alone


----------



## Deleted member 125418 (Feb 15, 2011)

wait, they did that to celebrate...?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 15, 2011)

kijogigo said:


> wait, they did that to celebrate...?



It's a muslim thing.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 15, 2011)

Probably capitalists or Muslims. Or perhaps some new, dangerous hybrid of the two.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 15, 2011)

I can see why: Because she is blonde (a rarity in Egypt).


Still, what a fuck up thing to do !


At least the Egyptian women are not spineless to help foreign women from their own men.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I can see why: Because she is blonde (a rarity in Egypt).



So if an Egyptian woman came to America it would be a perfectly valid reason to rape her?


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 15, 2011)

Did you even read the rest of my post where I said that it is still a FUCK up thing to do ?


It is not a secret that men living in certain countries (whose women have the same hair and eye colors) would be "sexually attractive" to women who have different hair and eye colors.

Which is why travel guides usually warn women with such qualities to be on their guard.


It is not the fault of the woman, however.

It is the men's fault for deciding to act like animals and treating her horribly.


----------



## hyakku (Feb 15, 2011)

Wait did she get raped or what? This article makes it hard to determine what happened.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Did you even read the rest of my post where I said that it is still a FUCK up thing to do ?



Nah. I am an ass hole, you see.


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 15, 2011)

Her face in the picture is like


----------



## Raiden (Feb 15, 2011)

I'd like to know what specifically happened to her, but something tells me that's a really stupid question to ask.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Feb 15, 2011)

Raiden said:


> I'd like to know what specifically happened to her, but something tells me that's a really stupid question to ask.



They obviously tried to convert her to Islam...


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 15, 2011)

Egypt I am disapoint.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 15, 2011)

She was separated from her crew from a lengthy amount of time apparently..yeah that doesn't sound too good atall.

I remember a Rio Grande Festival in Mexico that got out of hand a few years ago, humiliating for almost every party involved, and a lot of women were assaulted that day


----------



## impersonal (Feb 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I can see why: Because she is blonde (a rarity in Egypt).



Nah, that's because most muslims (especially in muslim countries) have a barbaric attitude in regard to women... They force them into the veil, but they don't make much of an effort themselves not to behave like pigs with them. Try visiting one of these countries -- white women get pretty much harassed all the time, it's considered normal.




			
				Fruits Basket Fan said:
			
		

> It is not a secret that men living in certain countries (whose women have the same hair and eye colors) would be "sexually attractive" to women who have different hair and eye colors.
> 
> Which is why travel guides usually warn women with such qualities to be on their guard.


It has very little to do with hair color, and a lot to do with cultural / religious issues. For (way too) many Muslims, woman = object, and occidental woman = sex doll.

If you go to China or Japan, you won't see stuff like that.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 15, 2011)

It is not always because of religion.

Culture? Sure.


China and Japan have a culture that encourages more restraint when it comes to the opposite sex (more so in the latter, at least).


America does not even have a high Muslim population and we have so many rapes.


Does that mean all Americans like to rape, then?


----------



## Ulysses (Feb 15, 2011)

Will she now have a bastard son of 100 maniacs?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 15, 2011)

> a brutal and *sustained *sexual assault and beating



Sounds like she was basically surrounded and gang raped. Next time CBS should send better security, it's outrageous that a blond white woman somehow found herself alone among 200 foreign men during a revolution. 

Hope she recovers alright. Is Egypt is even looking for the rapists?


----------



## BassGS (Feb 15, 2011)

Because Muslim men can't control their sexual urges when women aren't fully covered up. I can't blame them, these hoes be asking for it.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 15, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> It is not always because of religion.
> 
> 
> Culture?  Sure.
> ...



Aw, come on. Comparing the US to a muslim country, in terms of respect for women? Are you serious? Also, of course there are other cultures that are very barbaric in how they treat women. Indians for example are extremely promiscuous and disrespectful. Italians are terrible as well, though they would not resort to rape.

... So?


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> If you go to China or Japan, you won't see stuff like that.


  
Maybe it isn't as extreme but western women face similar stigmas in the far east.


----------



## Wolfarus (Feb 15, 2011)

@imp

From what i read in the article, she DID have a security detail w/ her, as well as her news crew. The area they were covering got flooded w/ people suddenly, and she got seperated from the rest of them during the throng / rush.

It sucks that it happened, and im going to credit the attack to a mixture of standard islamic fucktardery w/ women, and a group of degenerates acting apon an opportunity.


----------



## Scud (Feb 15, 2011)

It took 20 minutes to be stopped? I guess the soldiers decided to finish before stepping in.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Aw, come on. Comparing the US to a muslim country, in terms of respect for women? Are you serious? Also, of course there are other cultures that are very barbaric in how they treat women. Indians for example are extremely promiscuous and disrespectful. Italians are terrible as well, *though they would not resort to rape.*
> 
> 
> ... So?






Rape exists in Western countries (with the US near the top of all of them, I think).


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 15, 2011)

Most of muslim countries doesn't consider raping women as crime. And the gender equality is pretty much nonexistence in those countries.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Nah, that's because most muslims (especially in muslim countries) have a barbaric attitude in regard to women... They force them into the veil, but they don't make much of an effort themselves not to behave like pigs with them. Try visiting one of these countries -- white women get pretty much harassed all the time, it's considered normal.



Or, it could just be a bunch of assholes who surrounded a defenseless woman and raped her, and their color, creed, race or religion has absolutely nothing to do with it? 

And maybe while we're at it, we can agree that likely a large a number of Egyptian woman were raped that same night, and it had absolutely nothing to do with their race, creed or religion either? And maybe, we can even come to the conclusion, that thousands more right here in the US, were also raped, and that had nothing to do with race, color or religion either?


----------



## Juno (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> If you go to China or Japan, you won't see stuff like that.



And yet public sexual harrassment is such a problem in Japan they have special sign posts warning women against it, and China is systematically elimating huge portions of the next generation of women because they prefer sons. I'm not comfortable with holding them up as the golden standard for respecting women. 

You probably won't see this shit in China or Japan because they aren't in the middle of a massive revolution. Remove accountability, insert conflict and foreign women (like, say, those of Nanking), and the Japanese become just as barbaric as anyone else.

This has less to do with the culture and more to do with the situation.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 15, 2011)

Juno said:


> And yet public sexual harrassment is such a problem in Japan they have special sign posts warning women against it, and China is systematically elimating huge portions of the next generation of women because they prefer sons. I'm not comfortable with holding them up as the golden standard for respecting women.
> 
> You probably won't see this shit in China or Japan because they aren't in the middle of a massive revolution. Remove accountability, insert conflict and foreign women (like, say, those of Nanking), and the Japanese become just as barbaric as anyone else.
> 
> This has less to do with the culture and more to do with the situation.



Because all men are the same deep down, no matter how educated they may seem, right?

... Would you say sweden is the same? After all a few centuries ago they were vikings. Bet they'd rape any foreign women they could get their hands on, if only there was some social unrest in Stockholm!


----------



## T.D.A (Feb 15, 2011)

What does being Muslim have to do with it? Because rape only happens in Muslim countries am I right? Rather than classfying them as Muslims, classify them as idiotic satanic men, like those all around the world.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 15, 2011)

T.D.A said:


> What does being Muslim have to do with it? Because rape only happens in Muslim countries am I right? Rather than classfying them as Muslims, classify them as idiotic satanic men, like those all around the world.



It's about the frequency/occurrences of rape but rather the perception of rape itself. For instance, in certain Muslim countries the victims of rape can be punished. You don't see that outside the Islamic World and perhaps parts of Africa I'm ignorant about. It's certainly an odd way they "celebrate" something.


----------



## Wolfarus (Feb 15, 2011)

The attack is being linked to islam in general due to the way women are generally treated in the ME, and by muslims in general (no matter which country they live in)

As its been stated in this thread and many others, women generally do not have sexual rights in islamic countries, and they are pretty much at the mercy of the men around them.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 15, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> The attack is being linked to islam in general due to the way women are generally treated in the ME, and by muslims in *general* (no matter which country they live in)
> 
> As its been stated in this thread and many others, women generally do not have sexual rights in islamic countries, and they are pretty much at the mercy of the men around them.



I can understand what you are saying about the Middle East....but please do not say that all Muslims are like that !


Some of my closest friends are Muslims and they do not treat their women that way.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 15, 2011)

Way to taint the victory party.

And yes, i too question the wisdom of sending hot blond women as reporters in Islamic/Third World countries.


----------



## Wolfarus (Feb 15, 2011)

@FBF
Thats why i said "in general" aka leaving wiggle room for the exceptions that i know exist.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 15, 2011)

This has been turned into an Islam discussion by only the second page? 

It's bizarre, because if treating women with equality and respect had something to do with rape, wouldn't the USA have drastically lower rape incidences than Egypt? Why is it that we have hundreds of thousands of rapes if we respect women so much? How could it be that one in six women have acknowledged that they have been raped... in the USA (where we respect women)????!

It goes to show that gender equality and rape aren't related. Yet, we have opportunists coming out of the woodwork to somehow link the two, despite rape being viewed as a crime virtually everywhere on earth, including Islam where the death penalty is prescribed for rapists.


----------



## escamoh (Feb 15, 2011)

she wasn't raped, this news story is bullshit


----------



## Juno (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Because all men are the same deep down, no matter how educated they may seem, right?



You seem to think only muslim men are capable of rape. Why do I have to explain to you there's something wrong with that line of thinking? And can I do that without you trying to to play on some man-hating feminazi stereotype?



> ... Would you say sweden is the same? After all a few centuries ago they were vikings. Bet they'd rape any foreign women they could get their hands on, if only there was some social unrest in Stockholm!



You can easily say Egypt and the other countries in that region have issues with women, but don't pretend this couldn't have happened anywhere else. Gang rape is not exclusive to muslims.

Besides, does anyone here actually know what happened to Logan?


----------



## KidTony (Feb 15, 2011)

this story isn't very clear though. Sexual assault could mean anything, from rape to being groped.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 15, 2011)

KidTony said:


> this story isn't very clear though. Sexual assault could mean anything, from rape to being groped.



Seeing as she's in the hospital and needs to recover, I'd assume that penetration was involved.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 15, 2011)

Juno said:


> You can easily say Egypt and the other countries in that region have issues with women, but don't pretend this couldn't have happened anywhere else. Gang rape is not exclusive to muslims.


Obviously this is false. Some things can happen in a given location and culture and can't happen in another. We don't have the details of this particular story, but hopefully you get the point. 

You wouldn't see a mob of Europeans, Americans or Japanese rioters engulfing a news crew and raping the cute journalist right there on the spot; at the very least, it's less likely. This is due to much lower social acceptance of abuse.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> Or, it could just be a bunch of assholes who surrounded a defenseless woman and raped her, and their color, creed, *race* or religion has absolutely nothing to do with it?
> 
> And maybe while we're at it, we can agree that likely a large a number of Egyptian woman were raped that same night, and it had absolutely nothing to do with their *race*, creed or religion either? And maybe, we can even come to the conclusion, that thousands more right here in the US, were also raped, and that had nothing to do with *race*, color or religion either?


That's not a very subtle way tosuggest I'm a racist... out of absolutely nowhere. Just in case some people are still having trouble with this concept, YES, it is perfectly fine to state that some cultural practices are inferior to others. For example, the emo subculture sucks. Cultures practising genital mutilations or punishing raped women also suck.


			
				Fruits basket fan said:
			
		

> Rape exists in Western countries (with the US near the top of all of them, I think).


Seriously, when I wrote that Italians don't resort to rape -- that meant _not as easily_ as others might. Sorry if this was ambiguous. It seemed pretty straightforward to me that I was not discussing every single case (=no italian ever committed a rape), but a more general cultural tendency (= rape is not accepted in Italy).


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 15, 2011)

A while ago i read a book about modern Egypt(Mubarak era). Among its content was that Egypt is surprisingly a popular sex tourist destination. European(particulary British) grandma's and cougars travel in flocks too Egypt to have flings with local boytoys, sometimes even marrying them to help Egyptians to emigrate away from the country or to support their family financially. Its clear that single women who travels alone in Egypt for more innocent reasons suffer the consequences of the behaviour of these unscrupolous hags.

Theres also a huge gay sex tourism industry there, particulary in Luxor. There have actually been examples of gay dudes being terminal ill from AIDS travelling to Egypt to screw their brains out before they croak. Any single guy going to a swimming pool area will often be met by teenagers that point to their own crotch areas, a very poorly hidden invitation to blow them

Its probably the widespread Middle Eastern belief that Western people are sex starved whores on top of the coincidental appearance of misogynist lowlifes that led to this tragic event.


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (Feb 15, 2011)

If they can't help themselves from assaulting woman in burkas than why would this American be any safer?


----------



## impersonal (Feb 15, 2011)

Jin-E, I doubt sexual tourism is _that_ prevalent... that's a journalist's fantasy, so that kind of stuff gets lots of publicity.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 15, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that sex tourism stories aside, a lot of them probably have been raised to see western women, who obviously don't subscribe to the idea that most if not all of their body should be covered, as sluts.


----------



## Proxy (Feb 15, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Seeing as she's in the hospital and needs to recover, I'd assume that penetration was involved.



Wasn't it also said she was beaten. She could have been sent to the hospital for that as well. Sexual assault is a bit ambiguous, so unless it's specified, it could have been being groped for all we know.


----------



## siyrean (Feb 15, 2011)

erm, sexual assault at any large gathering of young people that have their adrenalines going is kind of common. it happens all the time at large music festivals, this isn't surprising at all. Why you all seem to want to pin it to ME mentality is beyond me. Her security detail should be fired though.


----------



## Santo (Feb 15, 2011)

HEADLINE:

Egyptians do to Journalist what Fox News has been doing to Journalism.


Damn Muslim Brotherhood.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Jin-E, sexual tourism is not that prevalent... that's a journalist's fantasy.



I'd advice you too read John R. Bradley _Inside Egypt_, a guy who's actually spent years in Egypt.

Bradley even says that in two villages close to the Nile, 90% of the houses were built by money offered by the grandma pimps from Britain. Since most of the guys are married with local women as well, its a trade off. The cougars get sex and attention in exchange for financing the housing/villas of their "husbands"


----------



## Time Expired (Feb 15, 2011)

Rape is disgusting - that's just so damn sick.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> O
> That's not a very subtle way tosuggest I'm a racist... out of absolutely nowhere. Just in case some people are still having trouble with this concept, YES, it is perfectly fine to state that some cultural practices are inferior to others. For example, the emo subculture sucks. Cultures practising genital mutilations or punishing raped women also suck.



You make absolutely no sense; I'm in no way calling you a racist, if anything, I'm calling you incompetent.

You suggested somehow that this only happened because these guys were Muslim, well I tell you that's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard in my life. This happened, because this woman went into an area of festivities, and she was assaulted by the monsters that were there. To suggest somehow, they only raped her because they were Muslim, is plain and simple, asinine.

And how is the emo culture inferior to any other culture? What right do you have to deem someone's cultural practices as inferior to others? The only person who can rightfully make such a claim is someone who's practiced all the world's cultures, and that certainly applies to none of us.


----------



## stream (Feb 15, 2011)

There is a good chance we will know all the details when she writes a book about it... 

But yeah, men have a tendency to take advantage of any civil disorder tin this way. Not the first time, not the last, and the only reason we heard about it at all is because she is a reporter for CBS


----------



## AmigoOne (Feb 15, 2011)

Shes in the hospital because she was also beaten. Rape can be easily assumed but you have to remember the the news reporter herself. Worldwide news of her being gang raped would have horrible effects on her and her family. I would say the spin on this article is for the privacy and the sake of the family and her. It's for the better.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 15, 2011)

I bet there is more to the story than we read. Someone fucked up, either CBS or the bodyguards. The guards must not have been paying attention to lose a blond woman for 20 minutes while she's being gang raped. 

Hard to believe a surge of people could separate large, armed bodyguards who physically secure a person.

Notice also that she isn't wearing a headscarf, meaning she would stick out like a sore thumb. That's something her security should have made her wear, it's way too easy to identify a blond reporter.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 15, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> What right do you have to deem someone's cultural practices as inferior to others? The only person who can rightfully make such a claim is someone who's practiced all the world's cultures, and that certainly applies to none of us.



This is why I hate being identified as a liberal, I get grouped with people like you.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 15, 2011)

Rob said:


> This is why I hate being identified as a liberal, I get grouped with people like you.



And why is that?

I'm Moderate myself, certainly closer to Conservative than liberal.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 15, 2011)

Your asinine determination to respect everyone's culture, regardless of how regressive said culture might be irritates the hell out of me. And unfortunately that's the stereotypical position for liberals to take.


----------



## Heloves (Feb 15, 2011)

CBS owes her big time for sending her to a country that basically treats their women horrible ... she sadly now is scarred for the rest of her life


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Feb 15, 2011)

scary wary


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 15, 2011)

Rob said:


> Your asinine determination to respect everyone's culture, regardless of how regressive said culture might be irritates the hell out of me. And unfortunately that's the stereotypical position for liberals to take.



My determination to respect other culture's stems from the fact that the idea of a 'superior' culture, is utterly retarded. I in no way defended any culture that treats woman as badly as this one does, I was simply arguing against his point that these people only did this because they were Muslim.

And back to the idea of a 'superior' culture, where does anyone get off making claims of a 'superior' or 'inferior' culture. Such talk is what leads to genocide.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 16, 2011)

Oh my gosh.... 

Why would they send a Blond American over to Egypt where they treat women badly? And without a headscarf or anything? During their protests? Bah!

Way to start the change guys! T.T


----------



## Keile (Feb 16, 2011)

The problem isn't really the culture so much as the political instability of the region in the first place. It is never a good idea to send a virile young white female to a region teeming with angry and sexually frustrated males trying to foment a revolution. Reporting on violent protest in the Middle East is not like idling during a festive carnival. The colors and noise and commotion isn't celebration. Perhaps she will think twice next time when it comes to trivilizing the plights of people so that the West can watch a new CBS episode at 8PM shap.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 16, 2011)

This is really sad even if she "only" got groped. She was beaten and was bad enough to require lengthy medical treatment. I'm glad at least those women managed to get her out of there.


----------



## Suigetsu (Feb 16, 2011)

Wow srsly, what was she expecting? there is a fking riot in a foreign country where blondes are rare. Poor broad  had it coming, next time have more prudence.

And wtf btw? this was their celebration? fking insane people.


----------



## Keile (Feb 16, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Oh my gosh....
> 
> Why would they send a Blond American over to Egypt where they treat women badly? And without a headscarf or anything? During their protests? Bah!
> 
> Way to start the change guys! T.T



They didn't know she was American. All they saw was a vulnerable young European trying to play investigative journalist. No one said Egyptian protests were news anyway. I have no sympathy for people who end up getting beaten, raped, etc. The government put out a travel warning.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 16, 2011)

Keile said:


> They didn't know she was American. All they saw was a vulnerable young European trying to play investigative journalist. No one said Egyptian protests were news anyway. I have no sympathy for people who end up getting beaten, raped, etc. The government put out a travel warning.



...I didn't say they did 

I said why would they (the news station) send an American woman over there (a place not very good for women to be) knowing it causes problems? What's his name from CNN got attacked to. Don't they learn?


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 16, 2011)

I wonder if there is even one thread in NCafe which speaks about a person getting raped or beaten up and there is nobody who claims that they had it coming. Some people really like to blame the victims.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 16, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> I wonder if there is even one thread in a NCafe which speaks about a person getting raped or beaten up and there is nobody who claims that they had it coming. Some people really like to blame the victims.



I'm not blaming her. >.< 

I'm blaming the new station for not informing her of what would happen (not "could"), or at least giving her proper security...


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 16, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I'm not blaming her. >.<
> 
> I'm blaming the new station for not informing her of what would happen (not "could"), or at least giving her proper security...



I was not talking about you.


----------



## Keile (Feb 16, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> I wonder if there is even one thread in a NCafe which speaks about a person getting raped or beaten up and there is nobody who claims that they had it coming. Some people really like to blame the victims.



NCafe is a forum with diverse viewpoints, with one of the more  commonalities amongst the populace being the willingness to assign blame first to the shark for the commitance of his callous act of biting and second to the victim for her fatal naievity in choosing to swim at all in shark infested waters. 

A fool is one who runs through a snake pit expecting to remain unbitten.

(..)

And the rest.


----------



## Dolohov27 (Feb 16, 2011)

They were happy because dude step down an wanted to celebrate, good for them bad for her.


----------



## Art is a Bang! (Feb 16, 2011)

That's horrible, I hope she recovers smoothly. Amazing the women saved her, usually the bystander effect happens. Journalism has always been a risky thing in these situations. 



Keile said:


> NCafe is a forum with diverse viewpoints, with one of the more  commonalities amongst the populace being the willingness to assign blame first to the shark for the commitance of his callous act of biting and second to the victim for her fatal naievity in choosing to swim at all in shark infested waters.
> 
> A fool is one who runs through a snake pit expecting to remain unbitten.
> 
> ...



It was sexual assault, stop trying to justify it. Yes journalism is a dangerous job for women overseas but she's still clearly a victim here. The fault lies with the men, not the women who "tempt" themselves.


----------



## Keile (Feb 16, 2011)

Art is a Bang! said:


> That's horrible, I hope she recovers smoothly. Amazing the women saved her, usually the bystander effect happens. Journalism has always been a risky thing in these situations.
> 
> 
> 
> It was sexual assault, stop trying to justify it. Yes journalism is a dangerous job for women overseas but she's still clearly a victim here. The fault lies with the men, not the women who "tempt" themselves.



Risk is fine as long as it is adjusted. Jumping into a hot skittle, one is at a higher likelihood of being burned.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 16, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> My determination to respect other culture's stems from the fact that the idea of a 'superior' culture, is utterly retarded. I in no way defended any culture that treats woman as badly as this one does, I was simply arguing against his point that these people only did this because they were Muslim.


There are superior cultures , no culture is equal, by that alone some culture are better.

I certainly think western liberal democratic culture is superior to theocratic medieval cultures.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> And back to the idea of a 'superior' culture, where does anyone get off making claims of a 'superior' or 'inferior' culture. Such talk is what leads to genocide.


Really? because many religious cultures consider itself superior to others, much of the time by virtue of a belief in inherent divinity, by your own logic those cultures promote genocide, even though you want to respect them.

Your logic is self-defeating.

It is interesting to me, that many liberals consider 'tolerance' and 'respect' to be an inherent virtue.

It isn't.

Try applying 'tolerance' and 'respect' to any monstrous crime, then you immediately understand that 'tolerating' and 'respect' by it alone is meaningless.


----------



## Woofie (Feb 16, 2011)

Keile said:


> NCafe is a forum with diverse viewpoints, with one of the more  commonalities amongst the populace being the willingness to assign blame first to the shark for the commitance of his callous act of biting and second to the victim for her fatal naievity in choosing to swim at all in shark infested waters.
> 
> A fool is one who runs through a snake pit expecting to remain unbitten.
> 
> ...



That's fine with sharks and snakes, which are acting on instincts and will act no other way, but not so much with humans. Fundamentally, there shouldn't _be_ a risk - it's only there because people are - unpredictably - acting immorally. It's not even like it's a crime of necessity (the 'walking through the ghetto with a gold watch' situation is slightly more debatable in that way); there's really no excuse. Putting _any_ blame on the victim is just partially absolving the perpetrator, which is neither right nor productive (I think it'd be better if society's attitude pushed in the direction of decreasing sexual assault rather than increasing women's fears and restricting their movements).

All of which sounds quite idealistic, I know, but morally it's a rather clear cut, black-and-white situation. Acting like there's any grey area simply contributes to the problem.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Feb 16, 2011)

Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country - 2010


*Spoiler*: __ 



*Link Removed*




DEFINITION:_Total recorded rapes. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population._

SOURCE: _Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)_



Egypt is not even on the list. Not one Middle Eastern country made up any of the top 47 out of the total 65 countries listed. This has nothing to do with culture. I will agree with impersonal that, some cultures are more desensitized to abuse than others. But rape as phenomenon itself is not exclusive to any accepted cultural mind set today, that I am aware of.

Twenty minutes is to long for just groping. That poor woman unfortunately was raped. Sadly, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to bring those involved to justice.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't see any reason to assume that list is accurate. If I was female and raped in most middle eastern countries (like say Iran) I wouldn't dare to mention it to anyone.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Feb 16, 2011)

I agree. Its statistics after all. But it is valid as far as reported rape goes. 

What is really significant is the low percentage of the 'inferior' culture's  rate of rape cases. With those numbers, its hard to quantify an accusation of even 'unreported' cases against them that is relevant to sexual crime.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 16, 2011)

Ichi Sagato said:


> I agree. Its statistics after all. But it is valid as far as reported rape goes.
> 
> What is really significant is the low percentage of the 'inferior' culture's  rate of rape cases. With those numbers, its hard to quantify an accusation of even 'unreported' cases against them that is relevant to sexual crime.



No, with those numbers it is not hard at all to quantify an accusation of even 'unreported' cases against them that is relevant to sexual crime. Because we have knowledge about their law system, their culture and their society. And we can reach a conclusion why they have the less reported rape (Quatar, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and so on). Societies with arranged marriages, laws that might not consider what the rest of the world sees as rape to be rape, and laws and judges and a society that might punish the victim. Clearly societies which we know to have those issues, we know them to be closed societies, are at the bottom of the list for some reason. So I don't think the low percentage on itself is as significant in a positive fashion as one might think. If it is a rigged statistic, it is a rigged statistic. If an election is rigged, if the one wins the election with a big percentage it does not necessarily means that he would have won it had it been fair. You don't know how much different the results would have been if different standards of reporting rape and carrying out punishments were at place. And if there was less fear in such societies and were less closed ones. So what you should focus upon is not that this is just statistics, and a small statistical error might be possible. But that this is rigged statistics that give us an incorrect view of things. 

 Though ironically the statistics might be significant in showing the existence of the problem of undereporting.  Read the third comment in that link you posted. 

Does all this mean that they are statistically more likely to abuse sexually or otherwise any woman walking on the street? Well I am not going to fully answer that.  What has been implied in this thread is that a beautiful blond woman in western clothing might be a bigger target in those societies than elsewhere. Which if true means there is a problem with that culture (and not of course a woman for being beautiful and not covering her self up) if it can't handle women having that appearance.

But really if we try to analyze the million and one ways that women are disadvantaged and abused in those societies we would have to write essays.


----------



## Zhariel (Feb 16, 2011)

Horrible, but lets stop putting people in this situation. I understand you want hardcore reporting, but watch from a fucking balcony. Stop throwing your reporters (or reporters, stop throwing yourself) into the fray of things. This puts a big damper on the Egypt situation for me, don't like hearing about this at all. I hope it isn't as bad as we all imagine.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 16, 2011)

Woofie said:


> That's fine with sharks and snakes, which are acting on instincts and will act no other way, but not so much with humans. Fundamentally, there shouldn't _be_ a risk - it's only there because people are - unpredictably - acting immorally. It's not even like it's a crime of necessity (the 'walking through the ghetto with a gold watch' situation is slightly more debatable in that way); there's really no excuse. Putting _any_ blame on the victim is just partially absolving the perpetrator, which is neither right nor productive (I* think it'd be better if society's attitude pushed in the direction of decreasing sexual assault rather than increasing women's fears and restricting their movements*).
> 
> All of which sounds quite idealistic, I know, but morally it's a rather clear cut, black-and-white situation. Acting like there's any grey area simply contributes to the problem.



Well said, especially the bold part. I don't have much to add.  That being said, I can understand someone asking people to be more careful for their own sake. But someone saying that they have no sympathy for the victim, or that it had it coming, goes well above and beyond that. It is vindictive and excessively sadistic towards the victim and it is partially absolving the perpetrator. 

We can both ask from people in possible danger to be more careful without blaming them and put our most pressure to the perpetrator. So I don't buy rhetoric that the rhetoric that blames the victim is encouraged by feelings for the victim's own good. Rather it shows a lack of empathy.

We also need to understand that some people will be put in risky situations by necessity or because they need to take a risk. Even if a mistake happens and someone takes an unnecessary risk (And that is not always the case), it doesn't justify sadism towards the victim, or believing that it justifies the actions of the human beings that attacked it.  For reasons you have done well explaining in your above message.

So is there a way to ask from people to take more safety precautions without blaming the victims and also fully blaming the perpetrator of a crime and putting the pressure to them? Even if it is also idealistic from my part, I think we can do so, or at least come near to that, so there is no reason for blaming the victim rhetoric.


----------



## Keile (Feb 16, 2011)

Caelus said:


> Horrible, but lets stop putting people in this situation. I understand you want hardcore reporting, but watch from a fucking balcony. Stop throwing your reporters (or reporters, stop throwing yourself) into the fray of things. This puts a big damper on the Egypt situation for me, don't like hearing about this at all. I hope it isn't as bad as we all imagine.



If I was an execute at CBS, I'd send another reporter. I don't care. I'm there to get ratings and make money. If Logan doesn't want to do it, I'll just hire a different woman and increase her salary.


----------



## zuul (Feb 16, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Egypt I am disapoint.



That's not an Egyptian thing only.

put a lone woman (she doesn't even have to be hot) amongst a bunch of excited men, and there are high possibilities for a rape to actually happen.

Well, to be prefectly honest, in this particular case the fact western women are seen as being slut in most Muslim country may have been an agravating factor here. 

There are maybe more chance for that sort of fucked thing to happen in countries that treat women as shit/sexobject. 

I'm not convinced of what i'm trying to assert.


----------



## Keile (Feb 16, 2011)

Woofie said:


> That's fine with sharks and snakes, which are acting on instincts and will act no other way, but not so much with humans.



Humans in a mob tend to act more on instinct than reason. This is the nature of the "mob mentality", and essentially the crux of my analogy. 





> Fundamentally, there shouldn't _be_ a risk - it's only there because people are - unpredictably - acting immorally. It's not even like it's a crime of necessity (the 'walking through the ghetto with a gold watch' situation is slightly more debatable in that way); there's really no excuse. Putting _any_ blame on the victim is just partially absolving the perpetrator, which is neither right nor productive (I think it'd be better if society's attitude pushed in the direction of decreasing sexual assault rather than increasing women's fears and restricting their movements).
> 
> All of which sounds quite idealistic, I know, but morally it's a rather clear cut, black-and-white situation. Acting like there's any grey area simply contributes to the problem.



I'd agree with you if this sexual assault didn't take place in a politically hostile and thereby virtually lawless area of the world. That is, if it didn't happen in a pool of hungry sharks. I argue that a very angry, tired and emotionally high group of Egyptian men represents the chariacature of a parade of sharks that are prowling the streets for something to latch onto. Furthermore, I assert that not only were the men acting in a separate frame of mind (mob mentality), but also that the reporters (the victims) should have been aware of these risks and consequently avoided the group altogether. 

Taking these mental leaps as true does not seem a very far stretch and if you accept this, then the grey here takes a more opaque quality. I would err on advising people not to shark tanks, even if they're seemingly well-fed. Punishing people during moments of mental lapse is a little unfair.


----------



## xenopyre (Feb 16, 2011)

First of all , the news is very vague , sexual assualt as in......?there is a very big difference between rape and geting a pinch on the ass .Second , it have more to do with the absence of the forces of order and momentaly anarchy at that time , and also remmember that the reason why Egypt undergo a revolution is becouse of poverety and a wide spread illitracy in the first place , so that is more of a factor than religion or race .


----------



## WT (Feb 16, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It has very little to do with hair color, and a lot to do with cultural / religious issues. For (way too) many Muslims, woman = object, and occidental woman = sex doll.



That's probably true and its shameful and disgusting. The discrimination against women is probably yet another reason why God is punishing the Muslims


----------



## impersonal (Feb 16, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> You make absolutely no sense; I'm in no way calling you a racist, if anything, I'm calling you incompetent.


So basically, you just added numerous references to race for no reason. You just had a fit of targeted dyslexia that made you type "race" everywhere in your post. In the future, I suggest you inform other posters of your disability prior to arguing with them, as this can lead to misunderstandings.


OutlawJohn said:


> You suggested somehow that this only happened because these guys were Muslim, well I tell you that's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard in my life. This happened, because this woman went into an area of festivities, and she was assaulted by the monsters that were there. To suggest somehow, they only raped her because they were Muslim, is plain and simple, asinine.


I suggested that it was made possible partly because of these guys' culture. Obviously, it wouldn't have happened with any Muslim, but only for those Muslims whose culture is to disrespect women. Again, even among these, you would need to find the most rotten apples and put them in a situation in which there are no consequences.

However, it can be generalized that the prevailing culture in the Arab world, and among Muslim fundamentalists around the world, is such that disrespect of women is very common. This increases the probability of grave incidents (sexual assault, etc.) happening. Happy now?

...I'm trying to make the argument as robust as possible against people like you, who nitpick on strawmen instead of attempting to seize the idea.



OutlawJohn said:


> And how is the emo culture inferior to any other culture? What right do you have to deem someone's cultural practices as inferior to others? The only person who can rightfully make such a claim is someone who's practiced all the world's cultures, and that certainly applies to none of us.


So there is no such thing as "inferior" or bad cultural practices. Or at the very least, neither you nor I can condemn any cultural practice. Strict entailments of your positions are: 
- We cannot say that emo practices are bad
- We cannot say that genital mutilation of women against their will is bad
- We cannot say cultural intolerance is bad

... Do you see how your position _a) is inhumane_ and _b) implies that you should not argue in its favour_ ?


----------



## hehey (Feb 16, 2011)

hyakku said:


> Wait did she get raped or what? *This article makes it hard to determine what happened.*


seriously?, did you even read it?


----------



## Miss Fortune (Feb 16, 2011)

First off, stupid CBS, you sent a blonde woman to Eygpt during a big time protest. Dumbasses.

Second off, you're in the middle of a mob. You'd better have the right amount of security to hold back so many people.

I also love it how a group of women saved her from gangbangers.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 16, 2011)

*What does this have to do with Egypt being an Islamic country? Regardless of things like religion, these occurrences are almost always going to be common in less fortunate areas and situations. It's the sad truth. What just as sad is people not using their brains, blaming the religion when the obvious answer is that the people are at fault and not the religion they claim to be following. 

*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 16, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *What does this have to do with Egypt being an Islamic country? Regardless of things like religion, these occurrences are almost always going to be common in less fortunate areas and situations. It's the sad truth. What just as sad is people not using their brains, blaming the religion when the obvious answer is that the people are at fault and not the religion they claim to be following.
> 
> *



Less fortunate areas and situations? Those guys just toppled their dictator, I bet they felt anything but unfortunate. If your culture and religion teaches you that western women are extremely promiscuous whores, you'll have less of an issue raping one. Islam is very quick to blame the victim in rape situations. The Australian top Imam who likened an unveiled women getting raped to an abandoned piece of meat being eaten comes to my mind.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 16, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Less fortunate areas and situations? Those guys just toppled their dictator, I bet they felt anything but unfortunate. If your culture and religion teaches you that western women are extremely promiscuous whores, you'll have less of an issue raping one. Islam is very quick to blame the victim in rape situations. The Australian top Imam who likened an unveiled women getting raped to an abandoned piece of meat being eaten comes to my mind.



*Yes, less fortunate areas and situations. A leader being removed from his position, whether he was a good or bad leader, will have some nasty consequences. 

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that Islam is a religion of violence, that it does demean women and that it's okay with rape. Even though none of that is true, let's pretend. How does that mean that these people did/are doing when they did because of Islam? This shit has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, across numerous cultures, religions and countries. You can't logically pin this on anything but the dark side of human nature. You can't tell me with a straight face that this shit goes on only in Islamic countries, or that it hasn't been going on consistently before Islam, or any of the Abrahamic religions for that matter, came around. *


----------



## Vicious-chan (Feb 16, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It's a muslim thing.



-_- how ignorantly racist of you.

It's more a fucked up person, thing. Not a specifically muslim thing.

Anyways, how was she sexually assaulted? I hope no more than groping and nothing severe :\ though that's still fucked up if only groping. I think I'd probably want to start shooting people if I saw such things. Good thing I have no gun.


----------



## gtw1983 (Feb 16, 2011)

One thing really sticks out to me.

How she waited until she got back into the states to go into the hospital.I wonder if it's because she just wanted to wait to get back into the states,or if hospitals are unavailable in Egypt right now?

If it's the first one that may at least suggest a bit that she wasn't actually raped.Because isn't it standard procedure after a rape to go straight to the hospital to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

But if they just weren't available I feel sorry for her.Because it's possible a  pregnancy might come out of it because she had to wait a day before treatment


----------



## hyakku (Feb 16, 2011)

hehey said:


> seriously?, did you even read it?



Apparently better than you did, in no part of the article is it specified what they are referring to. While we can infer rape, it seems intentionally ambiguous out of respect for her privacy (although it seems pointless to even post the story in the first place, hence my first post you so eruditely interpreted).

Also, for those saying that CBS or she should've expected it (not saying you all claim she deserve it), some of you are the same ones that were supportive of the revolution and seeing Mubarak lose power. How would that go down with no international media coverage? It's highly likely this revolution never would have even STARTED had Egyptians not been exposed to coverage from external sources like Tunisia which was provided by reports like Logan.


----------



## Juno (Feb 16, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Obviously this is false. Some things can happen in a given location and culture and can't happen in another. We don't have the details of this particular story, but hopefully you get the point.
> 
> You wouldn't see a mob of Europeans, Americans or Japanese rioters engulfing a news crew and raping the cute journalist right there on the spot; at the very least, it's less likely. This is due to much lower social acceptance of abuse.



The emerging details seem to be that she wasn't raped and that the pro-Mubarak 'element' (plain clothes police) that have been consistently attacking foreign journalists and assaulting female protesters may have been responsible. I have no idea how accurate that is, though that members of Mubarak's security forces have been ordering the use of sexual assault against women protesters and women journalists during demonstrations has been well documented; it's been going on for years. But with so few concrete details I'd hesitate before making sweeping statements about Egypt. In times of conflict, the perpetration of violence crosses religious and ethnic lines. 

For the most part I don't even disagree with you about what women face in Egypt. I just found your comparison to Japan and China to be a pretty poor choice. The white woman = slut stereotype is very prevalent in Asia, and while public harrassment is still a big problem in Japan, China has even more disturbing attitudes. And while Egypt is gripped in turmoil and people are dying in clashes on the street, I don't see how comparisons with politically stable countries is fair.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 16, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Yes, less fortunate areas and situations. A leader being removed from his position, whether he was a good or bad leader, will have some nasty consequences. *


*

They were partying in the fucking streets, I'm pretty damn sure that they weren't feeling unfortunate at that moment.




			Let's assume, for arguments sake, that Islam is a religion of violence, that it does demean women and that it's okay with rape. Even though none of that is true, let's pretend. How does that mean that these people did/are doing when they did because of Islam? This shit has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, across numerous cultures, religions and countries. You can't logically pin this on anything but the dark side of human nature. You can't tell me with a straight face that this shit goes on only in Islamic countries, or that it hasn't been going on consistently before Islam, or any of the Abrahamic religions for that matter, came around.
		
Click to expand...

*
Let's assume, for arguments sake, that they had been told from the time they were a child that women are equal to men, that women have the right to go where they want and wear what they want just like men and that women can be moral and monogamous even without being covered from head to toe. Even though none of that is true, let's pretend.

Yes, this has been going on for a long time, no that doesn't mean it's in human nature. It's a result of misogyny and a patriarchal society, both of which are especially prevalent in Abrahamic religions.

If your holy book tells you that women are meant to serve men, you'll have a lesser opinion of them and are more likely to rape them than someone who believe men and women are equal. It's as simple as that.



Vicious-chan said:


> -_- how ignorantly racist of you.



Islam is not a race. Nice try, though.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Feb 16, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Islam is not a race. Nice try, though.



Neither are Jews, but people claim people being racist for antisemitic remarks. Point remains the same, you're just making yourself look bad for generalizing and blaming Islam.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 16, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> They were partying in the fucking streets, I'm pretty damn sure that they weren't feeling unfortunate at that moment.



*Way to completely miss the point. Are you even trying? *



> Let's assume, for arguments sake, that they had been told from the time they were a child that women are equal to men, that women have the right to go where they want and wear what they want just like men and that women can be moral and monogamous even without being covered from head to toe. Even though none of that is true, let's pretend.
> 
> Yes, this has been going on for a long time, no that doesn't mean it's in human nature. It's a result of misogyny and a patriarchal society, both of which are especially prevalent in Abrahamic religions.
> 
> If your holy book tells you that women are meant to serve men, you'll have a lesser opinion of them and are more likely to rape them than someone who believe men and women are equal. It's as simple as that.



*What exactly does pretending any of that add to your argument? It's just a failed attempt by you at being funny. Besides, that's all culture and not Islam. You'd know that if you took the time to study the religion, even a little. 

Good job completely missing the point. Did you even read my post? Or is this seriously the best you can come up with? Whether or not Islam promotes what you claim it does does not change the fact that this stuff has been going on since the dawn of human history, long before any of the Abrahamic religions were ever introduced. Human nature or not, it's clear Islam is not to blame for these occurrences because they have happened uncountable times before Islam was ever introduced. 
*


----------



## Aokiji (Feb 16, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Less fortunate areas and situations? Those guys just toppled their dictator, I bet they felt anything but unfortunate. If your culture and religion teaches you that western women are extremely promiscuous whores, you'll have less of an issue raping one. *Islam is very quick to blame the victim in rape situations. The Australian top Imam who likened an unveiled women getting raped to an abandoned piece of meat being eaten comes to my mind.*





Islam can't blame people you dumbshit. At least say muslims.

And thats not victim blaming, if anything, that's misandry. It implies that men are only capable of restraining themselves from raping women unless they are censored. 

And no matter what you think of yourself, by now, you are pretty much Diamed level. When people find a way to say sexual assault is a muslim thing when rapists get their dicks chopped off in countries like Saudi Arabia you know you've hit rock bottom. 

The funny thing is, people fail to realize, no matter how fucktarded these "muslim countries" are, you're still an ignorant bigot. 

EDIT: Lol at men in Islam being allowed to wear what they want.  

Do you even know the social backlash a men can get because of verbally hitting on a woman in Islamic countries, nevermind FORCING YOUR DICK INTO THEM


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Feb 16, 2011)

have i been spending to much time on 4chan?

I half-expected someone to say "i'd hit it"


----------



## Aokiji (Feb 16, 2011)

Hey Saufsoldat would you be ok with your daughter marrying a devout muslim?


----------



## WT (Feb 16, 2011)

Aokiji said:


> Hey Saufsoldat would you be ok with your daughter marrying a devout muslim?



Maybe I can answer this. Saufsoldat attempts to impose his superiority over Muslims because he believes he has better morals than us, one of them being, freedom of a woman to marry whom ever she wants to (I think).

I suppose he'll be happy with this.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 16, 2011)

*I love how these people rarely, if ever, cite the Quran itself. I mean it's fine if you think Islam is this or that, but at least back it up with something credible. 

Saying some Iman said this or that so Islam is an evil religion is no different from saying Toriko sucks because some guy on NF said so. *


----------



## Aokiji (Feb 16, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Maybe I can answer this. Saufsoldat attempts to impose his superiority over Muslims because he believes he has better morals than us, one of them being, freedom of a woman to marry whom ever she wants to (I think).
> 
> I suppose he'll be happy with this.



I said "would you be ok" and not "would you beat her face if she disagreed"

Nice try though.

EDIT: I like how you only mention the freedom of coice only of the vagina brigade.


----------



## Aokiji (Feb 16, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I love how these people rarely, if ever, cite the Quran itself. I mean it's fine if you think Islam is this or that, but at least back it up with something credible.
> 
> Saying some Iman said this or that so Islam is an evil religion is no different from saying Toriko sucks because some guy on NF said so. *



To be honest it's better than Maj1n being a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and randomly quoting sinister sounding lines out of it when other, less specific places have a much more normal "attitude". 

friend seems to strive for muslims to be radical.

"Islam isn't about murdering non-muslims." maj1n: "*random bloodthirsty sounding quote* HA! Fuck you, you will never be civilized. Go behead some more civilians."

What the fuck does that guy want?


----------



## Ƶero (Feb 16, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I love how these people rarely, if ever, cite the Quran itself. I mean it's fine if you think Islam is this or that, but at least back it up with something credible.
> 
> Saying some Iman said this or that so Islam is an evil religion is no different from saying Toriko sucks because some guy on NF said so. *





I'm impressed. This thread went full retard pretty quick.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 16, 2011)

Aokiji said:


> Hey Saufsoldat would you be ok with your daughter marrying a devout muslim?



Good question, here is one for you.

Can a Muslim girl marry a non-Muslim man in a "devout" Muslim nation? Or would she be killed for dishonoring her family.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 16, 2011)

Vicious-chan said:


> Neither are Jews, but people claim people being racist for antisemitic remarks. Point remains the same, you're just making yourself look bad for generalizing and blaming Islam.



Jews are actually an ethnicity, or at least have been handled as such for centuries. It's just that our language doesn't do a good job at reflecting the difference between the religion and the ethnicity.



Pimp of Pimps said:


> *What exactly does pretending any of that add to your argument? It's just a failed attempt by you at being funny. Besides, that's all culture and not Islam. You'd know that if you took the time to study the religion, even a little. *


*

I believe I mentioned culture. Yep, pretty sure it's right there in my post.




			Good job completely missing the point. Did you even read my post? Or is this seriously the best you can come up with? Whether or not Islam promotes what you claim it does does not change the fact that this stuff has been going on since the dawn of human history, long before any of the Abrahamic religions were ever introduced. Human nature or not, it's clear Islam is not to blame for these occurrences because they have happened uncountable times before Islam was ever introduced.
		
Click to expand...

*
So if there's a religion that believes property does not exist and everything belong to everyone all the same, that religion does not promote theft? If a holy book says that homosexuality is wrong, it's pure coincidence that followers of that book are more likely to be homophobic?

You seem to think that I said "islam is the sole cause of rape in the world". Especially your last sentence makes that abundantly clear.

Does the word of a man not weigh more than that of a woman in islamic law? Does sexism against women not encourage treating them as lesser than males? Does treating one group of people worse than another not raise acceptance of violence against them? The factors are all there in plain sight.



Aokiji said:


> Islam can't blame people you dumbshit. At least say muslims.
> 
> And thats not victim blaming, if anything, that's misandry. It implies that men are only capable of restraining themselves from raping women unless they are censored.



Likening women to pieces of meat to be hunted by male predators sounds misogynystic to me, but that might just be me.



> And no matter what you think of yourself, by now, you are pretty much Diamed level. When people find a way to say sexual assault is a muslim thing when rapists get their dicks chopped off in countries like Saudi Arabia you know you've hit rock bottom.



And again people elevate religion to undeserved heights, putting it on the same level as race. No, religion is not something you're born with and religion is in fact a choice.



> The funny thing is, people fail to realize, no matter how fucktarded these "muslim countries" are, you're still an ignorant bigot.



For the record, I'd rather be a bigot than a violent misogynyst with the mind of a medieval peasant. Just saying.



> EDIT: Lol at men in Islam being allowed to wear what they want.
> 
> Do you even know the social backlash a men can get because of verbally hitting on a woman in Islamic countries, nevermind FORCING YOUR DICK INTO THEM



Veiled, pious, muslim women, yes. Exposed pieces of meat, apparently not so much.



Aokiji said:


> Hey Saufsoldat would you be ok with your daughter marrying a devout muslim?



Define "being ok with". Would I be happy if my daughter married a man whose worldview I absolutely disagree with and who views her as inferior to him? No, not at all. Would I attempt and stop her from doing it? No, being my daughter does not mean I can decide who she marries and who she doesn't marry.

Unfortunately, the reverse situation is very rarely accepted by muslim fathers and has resulted in honor killings.


----------



## vikramx (Feb 16, 2011)

Tell something new, these sort of acts go on all around the world irrespective of religion. It has nothing to do with religion but more with the nature of the person committing it. 

According to similar logic, does this mean Christianity/western culture teaches 

1.) Kids/people to shoot others in schools/colleges?
2.) Women teachers sleeping with their underage students?
3.) People to bring up stupid/out of the mind cases?
4.) To interfere in other nations' politics?
5.) To Fight wars?

While western cultures have their own good points, they do find their own ways to shit people over. 

Dont bring religion or culture in general/majority for cases like these. All of these are examples of how mankind, irrespective of their origins/religion (aka belief), fails. Murder is murder - doesnt matter where/how/by whom its committed. Same goes for rape/sexual assault.

On Topic, Its sad that she had to undergo this and hope she recovers soon. Good job to the Egyptian women who saved her.


----------



## Momoka (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm glad that the group of women and soldiers saved her. 


What the fuck, seriously... assaulting the reporter.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Feb 16, 2011)

I read about this yesterday. It's messed up, man.


----------



## Bender (Feb 16, 2011)

Yeesh, either a) Mad drunks or b) crazy fucks 

Either case


----------



## soulnova (Feb 16, 2011)

Bender said:


> Yeesh, either a) Mad drunks or b) crazy fucks
> 
> Either case



More like  with a bit of  and .

So, there won't be any news about this, I gather? Seems like th family asked to be left alone. Can't blame them.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 16, 2011)

This incident might have highlighted another problem in Egyptian society, outside of the disgusting misogyni displayed.

According to some sources, her attackers shouted "Jew, Jew!" while they assaulted her. And of course, a week or so earlier she was brought in by the cops claiming she was an Israeli spy.

If Egypt really want to develop into a modern and civilized state, they have to let go of their vitriolic and paranoid anti-semittism, which proved even more ridiculous by the fact that Logan isnt Jewish.



Just hope this incident didnt traumatize her to such an degree that she gives up reporting.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 16, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> This incident might have highlighted another problem in Egyptian society, outside of the disgusting misogyni displayed.
> 
> According to some sources, her attackers shouted "Jew, Jew!" while they assaulted her. And of course, *a week or so earlier she was brought in by the cops claiming she was an Israeli spy.*
> 
> ...



I just wonder if this attack was somehow not random. It seems eerie that she's locked up a week before being sexually assaulted in public. 

IIRC Anderson Cooper was specifically being targeted by state security and had to leave Egypt.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 16, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I love how these people rarely, if ever, cite the Quran itself. I mean it's fine if you think Islam is this or that, but at least back it up with something credible.
> 
> Saying some Iman said this or that so Islam is an evil religion is no different from saying Toriko sucks because some guy on NF said so. *



We're talking about what we see in Islamic cultures. And what we see in Islamic cultures is a paternalistic culture where women are required to cover themselves to avoid tempting men, and if I have to explain to you why that's an awful way to see women then there's no hope for you.

Actual quotes from the Koran would only be relevant if we were arguing about whether these cultures truly represent Islam.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 16, 2011)

Its devolved into religion tardism again 

Religion(and atheism) is blamed on a lot of things but that's just a scapegoat for humanity's intolerance in the first place  

What happened in Egypt to this woman was terrible, but its happened everywhere at one point. Religion aside, social situations can be worse depending on your environment, but that's not down to a religion, something has to reinforce that and use it(the belief system in question) as an excuse. This current issue being a disproportionate attitude towards females and their place in a modern society 

I don't know for a fact that this incident was religiously motivated just like i don't know that it wasn't. What i do know, is that people can twist things to generalize and smear, and it hurts communication between societies and cultures


----------



## Talon. (Feb 16, 2011)

i understand that tensions were insanely high, but what the hell?


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 16, 2011)

maj1n said:


> There are superior cultures , no culture is equal, by that alone some culture are better.
> 
> I certainly think western liberal democratic culture is superior to theocratic medieval cultures.



Different. The word your looking for is different. The idea of a culture being superior to another is stupid, because it all comes down to opinion. Yes, you think that the western liberal democratic culture is superior to theocratic medieval culture; but not everyone in the world agrees with you.



> Really? because many religious cultures consider itself superior to others, much of the time by virtue of a belief in inherent divinity, by your own logic those cultures promote genocide, even though you want to respect them.
> 
> Your logic is self-defeating.
> 
> ...



Of course there are religions out there that believe themselves superior to others, but does not mean that we should stoop to the levels of the medieval ideas and demean for what they believe? Of course not.

I don't consider tolerance or respect to be inherent virtue; I was merely pointing out the fact that in today's civilized society, someone like him, who claims to liberal anyway, should know that the idea that one culture is superior to another is completely subjective, and based on someone's personal beliefs. It's like saying Apple Juice is superior to Fruit Punch; obviously not something everyone would agree with.

And I didn't apply tolerance or respect to this particular crime; what I did do was point out the fact that anyone that believes that these men committed these crimes simply because they were Muslim, is an ignorant bigot, as any group of men in a position of power, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Atheist, could stoop this low in those conditions.



impersonal said:


> So basically, you just added numerous references to race for no reason. You just had a fit of targeted dyslexia that made you type "race" everywhere in your post. In the future, I suggest you inform other posters of your disability prior to arguing with them, as this can lead to misunderstandings.



Stop trying to patronize and attack, it doesn't work. I threw in race, with creed and religion because of the simple fact, that suggesting that someone commits a crime just because of their religion, is no better than saying someone commits a crime just because their race.



> I suggested that it was made possible partly because of these guys' culture. Obviously, it wouldn't have happened with any Muslim, but only for those Muslims whose culture is to disrespect women. Again, even among these, you would need to find the most rotten apples and put them in a situation in which there are no consequences.
> 
> However, it can be generalized that the prevailing culture in the Arab world, and among Muslim fundamentalists around the world, is such that disrespect of women is very common. This increases the probability of grave incidents (sexual assault, etc.) happening. Happy now?



No, you suggest that these guys committed these crimes because they were Muslim, which is foolish. Now, is it true that the culture in the Middle East is very abrasive to woman? Of course. But, is it true that because these men are Muslim, and are raised in Muslim homes, they find the idea of rape to automatically be okay? Of course not.

Put her in a predominantly Christian country that is in the midst of celebration, and the results won't be any worse.



> ...I'm trying to make the argument as robust as possible against people like you, who nitpick on strawmen instead of attempting to seize the idea.



No, you're making a terrible argument, and I've made no strawman, so I suggest you look up the meaning of the term before using. I realize what your idea means, and its connotations, and I find it stupid. I was raised in a completely Muslim, in a third world West African country, where men marry in droves at a time. Do I believe that woman are objects? No. Do I find rape disgusting and unforgivable? Of course.




> So there is no such thing as "inferior" or bad cultural practices. Or at the very least, neither you nor I can condemn any cultural practice. Strict entailments of your positions are:
> - We cannot say that emo practices are bad
> - We cannot say that genital mutilation of women against their will is bad
> - We cannot say cultural intolerance is bad
> ...



I never said you didn't have the ability to condemn a culture and its practices; what I did say was that to call a culture _inferior_ is completely stupid. Why? Because the idea of superior and inferior is subjective. I find Lebron James to be superior to Kobe Bryant, but of course not anyone would agree. Can we agree that are some things that one does better than the other, of course we can, but to call either inferior or superior to the other is stupid, because not everyone, especially the ones you are calling inferior, will agree.

My stance is far from inhumane, and you trying to pain me as such is very unappreciated.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 16, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I can see why: Because she is blonde (a rarity in Egypt).



What a legitimate reason. 

I've got a better one, because the citizens there are ass backwards, even considering just the Muslim world. It's not hard to say they would look at a woman like property when they think you should be able to bludgeon her to death with fucking rocks if she commits adultery.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 16, 2011)

It is somewhat true though, women with such hair colors often get the most attention from men in certain countries where that hair color is rare.

My female friends get unwanted calls from Mexican men whenever they visit Mexico because almost none of the local women have that hair color.


Despite the fact that the majority of Mexicans are supposedly devout Catholics.

So, you are going to get gangs of men who are scumbags whether the majority are Muslims, Christians, Jews, or other religions.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 16, 2011)

That's fucked up.  Everyone knows that once you hit mob mentality, people's normal sanity & restraints tend to get thrown out the window.   Nevertheless I wish her the best, and may those who assaulted her all die of cancer.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I believe I mentioned culture. Yep, pretty sure it's right there in my post.



*Good for you. Too bad mentioning culture =/= understanding that this has nothing at all to do with religion. Until you get that through your thick skull it doesn't matter how many times you mention the word culture. *


> So if there's a religion that believes property does not exist and everything belong to everyone all the same, that religion does not promote theft? If a holy book says that homosexuality is wrong, it's pure coincidence that followers of that book are more likely to be homophobic?
> 
> You seem to think that I said "islam is the sole cause of rape in the world". Especially your last sentence makes that abundantly clear.
> 
> Does the word of a man not weigh more than that of a woman in islamic law? Does sexism against women not encourage treating them as lesser than males? Does treating one group of people worse than another not raise acceptance of violence against them? The factors are all there in plain sight.


*
With every single post you make you demonstrate a clear inability to actually comprehend what you read. 

Of course said religion would "promote" theft and said religion would "promote" homophobia, but that in no way means that the follows of that religion that steal and/or are homophobic do/are such because of the religion. Is that too complicated a concept for you to understand? No matter what screwed opinions you have of Islam, these people did what they did because they were fucked up and not because they are following a fucked up religion.

And btw, men and women are equal in Islam. Men have more power than women in certain situations and vice-versa, but overall they are equal. Contrary to popular belies nothing about women having to completely cover themselves up or being stoned to death is mentioned in the Quran. * 




Rob said:


> We're talking about what we see in Islamic cultures. And what we see in Islamic cultures is a paternalistic culture where women are required to cover themselves to avoid tempting men, and if I have to explain to you why that's an awful way to see women then there's no hope for you.
> 
> Actual quotes from the Koran would only be relevant if we were arguing about whether these cultures truly represent Islam.



*"We?" I was talking to that Sauf idiot this entire time and him alone, I don't see where the hell this "we" came from. He very clearly is blaming Islam itself, and not the culture people practicing Islam happen to come from. *


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Feb 17, 2011)

^ Actually....yes, the Koran (much like the Torah for Jews) have references of stoning men and women who commit adultery and among other things.


But I agree with you that whatever the people's religion at that time was: It had very little to do with what those men decided to do since they took advantage of a situation when they saw a pretty, foreign woman (much like it could be done anywhere, regardless of the country's main religion) *simply because they are dickheads.*


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Feb 17, 2011)

Anyone heard of this? What an asshole.



_Left-wing journalist Nir Rosen joked today about the sexual assault of CBS News? chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan. Logan was assaulted on Friday during celebrations in Cairo that followed Hosni Mubarak?s resignation.

The initial tweet by Rosen stated, ?Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal.? From this tweet he went further, writing that he would have been amused if Anderson Cooper had also been sexually assaulted.

?Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don?t support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too,? wrote Rosen.

The two comments gave way to more. Rosen called Logan a ?war monger? and expressed doubt that she was actually assaulted.

?Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger? wrote Rosen.

?Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I?m sorry.?

Rosen clarified his initial reference to former American commander in Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal, writing that the assault should serve as a reminder of Logan?s ?role glorifying war and condemning Rolling Stone?s Hastings while defending McChrystal.?

Then came a quasi-apology by Rosen: ?ah fuck it, I apologize for being insensitive, it?s always wrong, that?s obvious, but I?m rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get.?

Then a more sincere apology: ?As someone who?s devoted his career to defending victims and supporting justice, I?m very ashamed for my insensitive and offensive comments.?

Rosen is a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security and a contributor to numerous publications._


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 17, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> ^ Actually....yes, the Koran (much like the Torah for Jews) have references of stoning for those who commit adultery to both men and women.
> 
> 
> But I agree with you for the most part, what the people's religion at that time had very little to do with those men decided to take advantage of a situation because they see a pretty foreign woman (much like it could be done anywhere, regardless of the country's main religion).



*
It does not. That is a very common misconception. The Quran states that one who commits adultery should be whipped 100 times, or something of that nature. *


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 17, 2011)

> Then a *more sincere* apology: “As someone who’s devoted his career to defending victims and supporting justice, I’m very ashamed for my insensitive and offensive comments.”



I am loling at this. It should be a "Then another insincere apology which sounds  more sincere".  I don't believe he was truly ashamed for what he did, I think he apologized to cut his loses and he was "ashamed" for the consequences to him rather than being ashamed for his words. What an asshole.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 17, 2011)

Its sad that politics can make people numb to personal tragedy isnt it? We're seeing it play out with this

It was the same when Giffords got shot in the head, really low brow stuff


----------



## Inuhanyou (Feb 17, 2011)

> Nir Rosen talked to FishbowlDC's Betsy Rothstein on Wednesday afternoon. He apologized again for his tweets about Lara Logan, and said, "a man should never joke about women being abused or harassed." Rosen said that what began as "black humor" led to statements "I could not possibly mean...being taken seriously and I was hurting people I didn't even know without any intention." He also said that he has "quite radical" views on women's rights, and that he has spent years reporting on the suppression of women's rights. "By joking around with some friends I betrayed all that and betrayed my family, friends and supports, and I brought shame upon myself and them," he said.
> 
> Nir Rosen has resigned his fellowship at New York University, the university announced Wednesday. Rosen had been a fellow at NYU's Center For Law and Security, but CLS director Karen Greenberg said in a statement that he had stepped down after coming under fire for joking on Twitter about Lara Logan's assault.




This kind of accountability is necessary in today's world


----------



## siyrean (Feb 17, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Different. The word your looking for is different. The idea of a culture being superior to another is stupid, because it all comes down to opinion. Yes, you think that the western liberal democratic culture is superior to theocratic medieval culture; but not everyone in the world agrees with you.



by that logic, no humans should ever be upheld to any sort of standard _ever_, because someone will always disagree. it's like trying to qualify art, but still i think most people would believe that the Sistine chapel is a great piece of work then the scribble i just made on a note pad, the same way most people would believe that a culture that works towards creating equality is better than one that shits on such ideals.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 17, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Good for you. Too bad mentioning culture =/= understanding that this has nothing at all to do with religion. Until you get that through your thick skull it doesn't matter how many times you mention the word culture. *



Culture and religion are not connected? You're telling me if 99% of all people in Saudi-Arabia followed a religion that says women are superior to men and should rule over them, the culture would still be the same it is right now? No, I don't think you'd say that, so why say that this has nothing to do with religion?



> *
> With every single post you make you demonstrate a clear inability to actually comprehend what you read.
> 
> Of course said religion would "promote" theft and said religion would "promote" homophobia, but that in no way means that the follows of that religion that steal and/or are homophobic do/are such because of the religion. Is that too complicated a concept for you to understand? No matter what screwed opinions you have of Islam, these people did what they did because they were fucked up and not because they are following a fucked up religion.*


*

You lost me somewhere here. Apparently you admit that Islam can promote sexism but would still refuse to acknowledge that that could lead to violence against women? Yes, that concept is very, very difficult to understand. If you follow an ideology that promotes a certain behavior and you display exactly that behavior, the ideology is not to blame at all? It's all just the person who does it?




			And btw, men and women are equal in Islam. Men have more power than women in certain situations and vice-versa, but overall they are equal. Contrary to popular belies nothing about women having to completely cover themselves up or being stoned to death is mentioned in the Quran.
		
Click to expand...

*
 Keep telling yourself that.



> *"We?" I was talking to that Sauf idiot this entire time and him alone, I don't see where the hell this "we" came from. He very clearly is blaming Islam itself, and not the culture people practicing Islam happen to come from. *



Right, because it's not like I said culture in the same breath with religion. No, no, I said it was all Islam and Islam is the sole reason for any rape ever, anywhere in the world. You wouldn't find me say that anywhere but since you claim it, it must be truth.



OutlawJohn said:


> Different. The word your looking for is different. The idea of a culture being superior to another is stupid, because it all comes down to opinion. Yes, you think that the western liberal democratic culture is superior to theocratic medieval culture; but not everyone in the world agrees with you.



So then every single revolution in history was wrong? Obviously those that were in power wanted to keep their power, so any rebellion against them was wrong. How dare we think democracy superior to despotism?


----------



## maj1n (Feb 17, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Different. The word your looking for is different. The idea of a culture being superior to another is stupid, because it all comes down to opinion. Yes, you think that the western liberal democratic culture is superior to theocratic medieval culture; but not everyone in the world agrees with you.


Then i guess all the egyptians are fucking stupid because their sick of the brutal regime? its just different isn't it? and comes down to opinion?

Your logic is self-defeating, and any cursory usage of logic can see how silly it is.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> Of course there are religions out there that believe themselves superior to others, but does not mean that we should stoop to the levels of the medieval ideas and demean for what they believe? Of course not.


If you quite emotionally say a belief in a culture being superior is akin or leads to 'genocide' then your automatically saying a culture that believes in its superiority is VERY VERY BAD.

Which means your logic is self-defeating, you think its stupid to judge cultures, but you go ahead and judge many.

Now you say 'we shouldnt stoop to medieval levels' suddenly medieval cultures is unacceptable to you.

What a hypocritical stance you have, i think honestly you haven't thought your own perspective through.


			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> I don't consider tolerance or respect to be inherent virtue; I was merely pointing out the fact that in today's civilized society, someone like him, who claims to liberal anyway, should know that the idea that one culture is superior to another is completely subjective, and based on someone's personal beliefs. It's like saying Apple Juice is superior to Fruit Punch; obviously not something everyone would agree with.


No it isn't subjective, as someone who has friends whom have been harassed by certain oppressive Governments, there are definitely superior cultures.

I certainly value cultures that uphold equality of women over those who don't.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 17, 2011)

*Egypt's harassed women need their own revolution*

By Mary Rogers, CNN
February 16, 2011 -- Updated 1804 GMT (0204 HKT)
An Egyptian girl flashes her nails painted with the colors of her national flag in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
An Egyptian girl flashes her nails painted with the colors of her national flag in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    * If you are a woman living in Cairo, chances are you have been sexually harassed
    * In 1994, shortly after I arrived in the city, a man walked up to me and casually grabbed my breast
    * Behavior of men includes groping, stalking, lascivious looks and indecent exposure
    * The only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change

Editor's note: CNN producer and camerawoman Mary Rogers has lived and worked in Egypt since 1994. She joined CNN in 1981 and has covered conflicts in Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Congo, Iraq, Chechnya, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Recently she filmed the uprising in Tunisia.

Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- Several months before the revolution, I wrote a piece for CNN.com on the sexual harassment of women in Cairo.

News of the chilling attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan, as well as other sexual assaults against women during Egypt's uprising, show that attacks against women have not gone away.

I speak from experience. While most of my days covering Tahrir Square during the last few weeks were free from harassment, there was one day when I was groped. Another colleague almost had her pants ripped off by a gang of thugs.

If you are a woman living in Cairo, chances are you have been sexually harassed. It happens on the streets, on crowded buses, in the workplace, in schools, and even in a doctor's office.
*
According to a 2008 survey of 1,010 women conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women's rights, 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women have been sexually harassed.*
It happens on the streets, on crowded buses, in the workplace, in schools, and even in a doctor's office.
--Mary Rogers

I was walking home from dinner recently when a carload of young men raced by me and screamed out "Sharmouta" (whore in Arabic.)

Before I could respond, they were gone, but I noticed policemen nearby bursting with laughter. I am old enough to be those boys' mother, I thought.

This incident was minor compared to what happened in 1994, shortly after I moved here. It was winter, and I was walking home from the office, dressed in a big, baggy sweater, and jacket. A man walked up to me, reached out, and casually grabbed my breast.

In a flash, I understood what the expression to "see red" meant. I grabbed him by the collar and punched him hard in the face. I held on to him, and let out a stream of expletives. His face grew pale, and he started to shake. "I'm sorry. I'm sorry," he whispered.

But the satisfaction of striking back quickly dissipated. By the time I walked away, I was feeling dirty and humiliated. After a couple of years enduring this kind harassment, I pretty much stopped walking to and from work.

Of course, harassment comes in many forms. It can be nasty words, groping, being followed or stalked, lewd, lascivious looks, and indecent exposure.

At times it can be dangerous. This is what a friend told me happened to her: "I remember I was walking on the street, when a car came hurtling towards me. Aiming for me! At the last minute he swerved, then stopped, and finally laughed at me. I learned later that it was a form of flirting."

Why is sexual harassment in Egypt so rampant? There could be any number of reasons, but many point to disregard for human rights.

Before the uprising, Nehad Abu el Komsan, the Director for the Center for Women's Rights, told me that Egypt was more interested in political than public security. She said that often meant that officials focused more on preventing political unrest than addressing social ills.

Some also blame the spread of more conservative interpretations of Islam from the Gulf over the past 30 years. They say such interpretations demand more restrictive roles for women and condemn women who step outside of those prescribed roles.
Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment.
--Mary Rogers
RELATED TOPICS

    * Egypt
    * Sexual Harassment

"Four million Egyptians went to the Gulf," el Komsan said. "They returned with oil money, and oil culture, which is not very open, related to the status of women. All of this changed the original culture of the Egyptian," she adds, "which included high respect for women."

Sara, a young Egyptian activist, told me that the concept of respect for some reason doesn't exist any more. "I think Egypt has lived a very long time in denial. Something happened in Egyptian society in the last 30 or 40 years. It feels like the whole social diagram has collapsed."

What is being done to raise awareness and combat such behavior? A law regarding sexual harassment will have to wait. The country has greater concerns now -- forming a new government; writing a new constitution; getting Egypt's economy going again and dealing massive unemployment, among other things.

The military is in charge now, and who knows when Egypt will get a new president, or parliament.

In the past, women who have been sexually harassed here have been too afraid or ashamed to speak up. That is changing slowly. In 2008, in a landmark court case, a man was sentenced to three years of hard labor for grabbing the breast of Noha Rushdi Saleh, a brave woman determined to seek justice.

The trial was covered extensively in the Egyptian press, and brought the problem of sexual harassment out in the open.

A group of young idealists are taking a personal initiative in trying to combat sexual harassment.

They are handing out pamphlets now saying: "Don't take bribes, don't drive the wrong way on a one way street, and don't sexually harass women." Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment.

But the only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mary Rogers.


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 17, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I just wonder if this attack was somehow not random. It seems eerie that she's locked up a week before being sexually assaulted in public.
> 
> IIRC Anderson Cooper was specifically being targeted by state security and had to leave Egypt.



From my understanding, the protesters were largely succesful in singling out provocateurs and regime loyalists and ejecting them out of the sqaure.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> *Culture and religion are not connected? *You're telling me if 99% of all people in Saudi-Arabia followed a religion that says women are superior to men and should rule over them, the culture would still be the same it is right now? No, I don't think you'd say that, so why say that this has nothing to do with religion?



*No, they aren't. They are usually intertwined but they are in the end completely different things.*



> You lost me somewhere here. Apparently you admit that Islam can promote sexism but would still refuse to acknowledge that that could lead to violence against women? Yes, that concept is very, very difficult to understand. If you follow an ideology that promotes a certain behavior and you display exactly that behavior, the ideology is not to blame at all? It's all just the person who does it?



*I never said that. Not once. Can you not read?*



> Keep telling yourself that.



*It's the truth, no matter how much you try and deny it. *



> Right, because it's not like I said culture in the same breath with religion. No, no, I said it was all Islam and Islam is the sole reason for any rape ever, anywhere in the world. You wouldn't find me say that anywhere but since you claim it, it must be truth.


*
Don't try and be a smart ass. We all know you're no good at the smart part. I never once said that you said Islam was the cause of all rape ever. Don't put words in someone else's mouth,  it's a clear sign of desperation and frankly just makes you look stupid.  But you are clearly saying that the sexual assault this thread is about, and all other sexual abuse done by Muslims, is because of Islam which is just frankly asinine. * 

*Now to mention that you never once fucking said anything about the culture of the people who practice Islam specifically, you are clearly dragging the religion itself into this whole mess. *

*You have the debating skills of a 7 year old. *


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 17, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *No, they aren't. They are usually intertwined but they are in the end completely different things.*



Different =/= Separate

Of course they're different things, you'd have to be illiterate to not see that, but that doesn't mean they're not connected. 

You say yourself they're intertwined but deny that they're connected? I'm sorry, but what exactly is the difference? Do enlighten me.



> *I never said that. Not once. Can you not read?*
> 
> *It's the truth, no matter how much you try and deny it. *



Alright, so the problem seems to be that you deny the inherent sexism and misogyny in Islam. 

Do you deny that a male witness is worth twice as much as a female witness?

Do you deny that daughters only inherit half as much as sons?

Do you deny that the Koran commands men to beat disobedient women?



> *
> Don't try and be a smart ass. We all know you're no good at the smart part. I never once said that you said Islam was the cause of all rape ever. Don't put words in someone else's mouth,  it's a clear sign of desperation and frankly just makes you look stupid.*


*

You said that existence of rape before the emergence of religion proves that Islam cannot be the cause for rape. That tells me you think I said Islam is the only cause.




			But you are clearly saying that the sexual assault this thread is about, and all other sexual abuse done by Muslims, is because of Islam which is just frankly asinine.
		
Click to expand...

*
Nope, never said that. Well, except in my first post, which is the obligatory one-liner you drop in threads like these because you know it'll piss of a few people. Hell, I got negs calling me a dumbfuck, showing me a picture of a muslim terrorist holding a decapitated head and calling me a racist, I'd say that post was quite a success.

Anywho, all I said as soon as I got to debating was that Islam encourages rape because of its inherent misogyny.



> *Now to mention that you never once fucking said anything about the culture of the people who practice Islam specifically, you are clearly dragging the religion itself into this whole mess. *



And the religion itself should be in that mess. Culture doesn't have a dogma, Islam does. Since culture is ever-changing it cannot be inherently sexist, a holy book like the koran on the other hand can be (and is) inherently sexist. Culture doesn't arise out of nothingness and then suddenly turn against women in favor of men.



> *You have the debating skills of a 7 year old. *



But ad hominems put your debating skills far above those of a 7-year-old


----------



## impersonal (Feb 17, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> [Morality is relative]
> [All cultures are equal]


Okay, let's go through this as clearly and exhaustively as possible, because your posts are very entangled. Let's see if I can point to you the exact problem with your stance. 

*First, imagine you are amoral.*
You look at the world without judging what is going on; you notice what is happening here and there, and register these facts.

What do you see? Different people adhere to different behaviors. Some people work hard, others are lazy. Some people are criminals, others respect the law. Some people force their women into submission. Others let them be free. 

Look harder, and you'll notice that depending on their countries, religions, social status, people behave in different ways. _An abstract generalization of a multitude of such individual behaviors and of the beliefs that fuel these behaviors_ is called a _culture_. Around the globe, thousands of such generalizations can be made, producing as many different _cultures_ and _subcultures_. 

As I said, cultures are characterized by behaviors and beliefs, including moral beliefs. Such beliefs include for example "I should work hard", "men and women are equal", "men should treat women with respect", "the goal of life is to be rich", "women should obey men", "people should not torture animals", etc. Examples of behaviors are giving money to the poor or mutilating the genitals of young girls.

Now, keep in mind that so far we are seeing the world from a purely non-judgemental point of view. We are only interested on what is, materially speaking, the case, without making any judgment of whether it is good or bad, and whether it should be supported, tolerated, or fought against. At this point, it cannot be said whether cultures are superior, inferior, or equal. In fact, we cannot justify morally _any_ decision we take, or that a human being is valuable, because we lack a _morality_.

But people can do both these things. This is due to their moral framework.

*Now, imagine you have a moral framework. You add this moral framework to the amoral worldview expressed above.*
It is a set of judgment rules for acts and things. The rule works something like that: Murder is bad, rape is bad, stealing is bad, slavery is bad, unjustified inequality of treatment is bad, etc  (and I should stop these things from happening). Generosity is good, respect for other human beings is good, happiness of me and others is good, (and I should work to make these things happen).

Now, apply this moral framework on what we found earlier -- cultures. It was found earlier that people behave differently in different cultures. Their behavior will inevitably be judged by our moral framework. It will be possible to classify cultures according to how much they respect the rules of our moral framework, or to how much stuff we are supposed to stop from happening according to our moral framework... (This is exactly the same process according to which we judge individuals). From this, we get a ranking of cultures, from superior to inferior.

*Conclusion*
...To this you will reply, "sure, but the moral framework is still subjective". Indeed. But take note that this framework is necessary not just for classifying cultures. It is necessary for:
- electing politicians, and deciding which are good and which are bad
- sentencing criminals, and deciding what is just and unjust in general
- deciding whether to rape pretty girls or try to flirt with them until they are seduced (which may never happen)
- etc.

I take the possibility to do these things for granted in most debates with other human beings. Thus, I also take for granted that there are superior and inferior cultures. The two things come together.

... So, it is possible to claim that "there's no such thing as superior or inferior cultures". But by doing so, you set yourself in an ontology, in a position that is so limited that it is useless: you can not make any claims that involves a moral judgment. 

And because this position is so limited, you're going to contradict yourself sooner or later, by making a value judgment and thus adhering to a moral framework. Which in turn entails a classification of cultures. 

If you want, I'll go through your posts and count the number of value judgments you made, which are as many contradictions. But I don't think this will be necessary.



			
				Pimp of Pimps said:
			
		

> Saufsoldat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So would you say that culture does not influence religion and religion does not influence culture?

Your stance seems extremely artificial... but why not. Just make sure you define things properly because you seem to have a very particular understanding of what exactly constitutes a religion, and this will lead to much confusion.

As far as I understand, by "religion" you mean the sacred text and the sacred text only. Things like: how a religion is practiced, which things are considered in accordance to God's will by their followers, secondary religious texts such as fatwas, etc., are not considered part of religion.




			
				Pimp of Pimps(to saufsoldat) said:
			
		

> You have the debating skills of a 7 year old.


...


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> Pimp of Pimps said:
> 
> 
> > You have the debating skills of a 7 year old.
> ...


Hey Saufsoldat, I think you took this the wrong way. 

This is coming from a Muslim, and Muslims believe that six year old children have the mental capacity to understand the grand ramification to marring a person 40+ year their senior. 

I mean they couldn't possibly be as hypocritical as to say that a 7 year old has a low mental capacity for simple reasoning, and at the same time believe that a 6 year old has the high enough mental capacity for life time decisions.

right?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Feb 17, 2011)

any pictures of her tits?


----------



## WT (Feb 17, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Hey Saufsoldat, I think you took this the wrong way.
> 
> This is coming from a Muslim, and Muslims believe that six year old children have the mental capacity to understand the grand ramification to marring a person 40+ year their senior.
> 
> ...



No, what he probably means (which is true) is that a 6 year old Lady Aisha >>>> You.

And lol at bringing this up again.


----------



## Bill_gates (Feb 17, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> It is somewhat true though, women with such hair colors often get the most attention from men in certain countries where that hair color is rare.
> 
> My female friends get unwanted calls from Mexican men whenever they visit Mexico because almost none of the local women have that hair color.
> 
> ...



sorry to be off topic but what anime is your avatar and sig from?


----------



## Heloves (Feb 17, 2011)

I just believe that the Middle East is a hot spot for women of any race to go without some sort of protection... and even if you do have some things like getting lost can screw up your self-defence leaving you vulnerable


----------



## WT (Feb 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Do you deny that a male witness is worth twice as much as a female witness?



Only in financial transactions, everything else, no. There's more to this but I am not going to highlight the reasons. 



> Do you deny that daughters only inherit half as much as sons?



Parents are capable of giving whatever amount to their children. However, in case there exists no will, then the above rule applies. 

1) Money earned by a man belongs to himself, wife and children.
2) Money earned by a woman only belongs to herself.
3) In that era, men are looked upon as the "hunters and gatherers". Whatever they inherit will be used to support their home (including wives and children).
4) Whatever the woman inherits, it belongs to herself, there is no compulsion for her to share with other members of the family. She generally gets married off to a man, and whatever that man inherited, part of the wealth now belongs to her as well. 
5) It is a duty for a man to pay his wife a salary. The reverse does not apply if the woman works. 


In fairness, men are probably more restricted than women when it comes to inheritance and money. 






> Do you deny that the Koran commands men to beat disobedient women?



Last resort. 

There are many hadith which I can quote where the prophet orders men not to touch their wives. 

The most strict laws about domestic violence in the world are in Britain (last time I checked). I am active campaigner against it and hold some certificates in this area.

Let me tell you that the "wife beating" instructions as ordained by Islam will never fall under physical abuse. For physical abuse to even exist, there must be physical marks left over. Leaving physical marks on your spouse is forbidden in Islam. This whole wife beating thing is blown out of proportion. It exists as a symbolic thing. 




> Islam encourages rape because of its inherent misogyny.



Islam came to eradicate misogyny. Its a religion which accepts that men and women are equal but not identical, however, have their own place in society.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 17, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> No, what he probably means (which is true) is that a 6 year old Lady Aisha >>>> You.
> 
> And lol at bringing this up again.



I bring it up for the simple reason of Cognitive Dissonance. 


You hold in general every day experience that a 7-year old has an immature mental capacity. You apply this belief in to aspects of your every day, in this case insulting someone. 

While at the same time believing that 6-year old children have the mental capable to decided on complex situation of marriage. 

I brought this up now, because I find your Cognitive Dissonance funny, and want to take EVERY SINGLE opportunity I can't to point how ridiculous it is, in hopes that one day you will see if for yourself. 

But by your comment now, it seems that today is not the day.


----------



## Punpun (Feb 17, 2011)

Bad example sadated, A 6 years old child could do that. Not a 7 years old.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill_gates said:


> sorry to be off topic but what anime is your avatar and sig from?



I'm not him/her, but that's Canaan


----------



## WT (Feb 17, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> While at the same time believing that 6-year old children have the mental capable to decided on complex situation of marriage.



Please elaborate on this. Was marriage always a complex issue, or is it a complex issue only now? Does the complexity differ between cultures and era's?

Or are you under the very very generalized assumption that the concept of marriage always been a complex topic for the human being?

(In opposition, I believe that the whole existence of man, woman and the ability to mate is a natural instinct and not all that complicated).


----------



## impersonal (Feb 17, 2011)

Let's just not go to the whole Aicha story all over again. Please.


White Tiger,



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> *[Physical abuse is a] last resort.*
> 
> There are many hadith which I can quote where the prophet orders men not to touch their wives.
> *
> ...


Frankly, I don't think you make a very good advocate for how Islam respects women.

Physical abuse is a last resort? Well, it's a good thing you _try_ talking first, but physical abuse should not be resorted to _at all_.

Physical marks? So if I punch you in the stomach/lower stomach (that would leave no marks) or lock your wrists or arms, or strangle you with my forearm, that's not physical abuse? Seriously? None of these things would leave any marks lasting  more than a few minutes.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 17, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> That's fucked up.  Everyone knows that once you hit mob mentality, people's normal sanity & restraints tend to get thrown out the window.   Nevertheless I wish her the best, and may those who assaulted her all die of cancer.



THIS. I need to spread more rep, dammit! Remind me later.

*sigh* Here we go...



White Tiger said:


> Islam came to eradicate misogyny.







White Tiger said:


> Its a religion which accepts that men and women are equal but not identical, however, have their own place in society.




...Back in the 7th century, yes. It's very very difficult to apply a set of rules made at that time on a continuously changing global society. This applies for the Bible too... even if I'm Catholic. Nobody should tell anyone what their place in society is. They have to decide that by themselves.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 17, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Please elaborate on this. Was marriage always a complex issue, or is it a complex issue only now? Does the complexity differ between cultures and era's?
> 
> Or are you under the very very generalized assumption that the concept of marriage always been a complex topic for the human being?
> 
> (In opposition, I believe that the whole existence of man, woman and the ability to mate is a natural instinct and not all that complicated).


I would say that is was a much more difficult decision when then than it is now because of the availability of divorce, the protections for women, the mobility of people, etc allows for a reversal of that decision much easier today then it was "back then". 

I would say that "back then" it was easier to exploit marriage, especially in young women due to the social nature of it being so out of their control and their inability to get out of the marriage. 

I would say that "I am my father property, he can marry to me to who ever he likes, if I complain he will kill me." Then in the choice between marriage and death is a very simple one, and not at all "a complex issue" as you phrase it. 

But as for when a true choice is given, I would say it was more difficult in the past, and there was much more risk involved.

But hey, keep on working on the Cognitive Dissonance, I am sure belittling the lives and choices of women "in the past" is right in step with Islam.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 17, 2011)

A woman among hundreds of sexually repressed Egyptians, shock horror this happens. In their sick little minds they believe white women deserve no less since they are not to be respected.

And why are you guys arguing with someone who's so blinded by faith he advocates domestic abuse? Forget it, it's pointless.


----------



## WT (Feb 17, 2011)

[/QUOTE]
White Tiger,


Physical abuse is a last resort? [/QUOTE]

I already said, Islamic rules don't conform with Physical abuse at all.



> Well, it's a good thing you _try_ talking first, but physical abuse should not be resorted to _at all_.



Talking is the 1st step. Second step is to sleep in separate beds. Divorce is also always an option. 



> Physical marks? So if I punch you in the stomach (that would leave no marks) or lock your wrists or arms, that's not physical abuse? Seriously?



I'll elaborate. Can't use more than a finger when this last symbolic resort comes. 

Next time you have a verbal fight with your wife, please consider it "physical abuse" if you actually touch her with your finger.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 17, 2011)

I love how White Tiger believes people who abuse their wives stick to the guidelines. All they see is permission and then proceed to boil their wives feet.


----------



## WT (Feb 17, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> I love how White Tiger believes people who abuse their wives stick to the guidelines. All they see is permission and then proceed to boil their wives feet.



I don't defend Muslims. I try to defend Islam. You can say whatever you want about Muslims, to be honest, I'll agree with most of it.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 17, 2011)

White Tiger, the problem is the relation of obedience. It is made clear that it's the husband's right to get his wife to obey to everything he says. Hence the very possibility of a "last resort" use of physical abuse. Such a situation is obviously going to lead to abuse in a number of cases.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 17, 2011)

I lol'd@"abusing your wife is only okay as a last resort!". How merciful of you.


----------



## hmph (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm certain he believes a wife has the right to abuse her husband if it's the last resort in getting her way too.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Different =/= Separate
> 
> Of course they're different things, you'd have to be illiterate to not see that, but that doesn't mean they're not connected.
> 
> You say yourself they're intertwined but deny that they're connected? I'm sorry, but what exactly is the difference? Do enlighten me.



*They are usually intertwined because choose to make it so, but 
Islam itself has nothing to do with one's culture. Like I said before, Islam had nothing at all to do with what happened in the article. *



> Alright, so the problem seems to be that you deny the inherent sexism and misogyny in Islam.
> 
> Do you deny that a male witness is worth twice as much as a female witness?
> 
> ...


*First of all, you're not fooling anyone here. This is a very obvious attempt by you to shift the direction of the argument. Like I said in my very first reply to you, whether or not Islam is any of the things you claim does not change that these people did not do what they did because of Islam. 

But, just so you know, there is absolutely **zero sexism or misogyny in Islam. Reading the Quran without bias makes this very clear. I already stated that men do have more power than women in certain situations, but it works the other way as well. Islam does not command men to beat disobedient women. **You can only beat your wife, only as an absolute last resort and you are forbidden to actually physically harm them. The Quran provided all this in a time when wife beating was common and accepted, the Quran is against beating your wife. Beating someone with a twig the lengh of your finger at most and being prohibited from leaving a mark does not qualify as beating. Daughters do inherit half as much as sons, because in Islam the men are expected to carry the financial load (women can, but it is a necessity for men) **and so the son would have more need for the money. The girl will in all likelihood eventually be married, so she would have little need for the inherited money. However, in situations where the women won't be married then more money is given to the daughter than otherwise. *



> You said that existence of rape before the emergence of religion proves that Islam cannot be the cause for rape. That tells me you think I said Islam is the only cause.



*That's retarded. I said that you think Islam is the reason for rape here, not that you think Islam is the reason for all rape ever. You're just arriving at nonsensical conclusions to try and make yourself look better. *



> Nope, never said that. Well, except in my first post, which is the obligatory one-liner you drop in threads like these because you know it'll piss of a few people. Hell, I got negs calling me a dumbfuck, showing me a picture of a muslim terrorist holding a decapitated head and calling me a racist, I'd say that post was quite a success.
> 
> Anywho, all I said as soon as I got to debating was that Islam encourages rape because of its inherent misogyny.



*So now you're backtracking, saying you didn't mean what you said earlier. You suck at this. *



> And the religion itself should be in that mess. Culture doesn't have a dogma, Islam does. Since culture is ever-changing it cannot be inherently sexist, a holy book like the koran on the other hand can be (and is) inherently sexist. Culture doesn't arise out of nothingness and then suddenly turn against women in favor of men.



*Except religion is not in this mess, at all. Culture being ever changing does not mean it can't be exist. By that logic soeone who changes opinions can't have an opinon. Regardless of what it may later become or once was, a culture can be sexist. *



> But ad hominems put your debating skills far above those of a 7-year-old


*Oh, wow. You do realize that I never once used an ad hominem against you, right? It's usually a good idea to know what a word means before you use it and make a fool out of yourself. *


----------



## soulnova (Feb 17, 2011)

Such Off-topicnes!!

This was the work of Mob Mentally people! MOB MENTALLY. 


And sadly, I cannot let this slide. 



Pimp of Pimps said:


> But, just so you know, there is absolutely [/B]*zero sexism or misogyny in Islam.*


*

Ok, let's see....



Pimp of Pimps said:



			I already stated that men do have more power than women in certain situations, but it works the other way as well. Islam does not command men to beat disobedient women.

Click to expand...


It just allows it.  




Pimp of Pimps said:



			You can only beat your wife, only as an absolute last resort and you are forbidden to actually physically harm them.
		
Click to expand...


:33  Can I beat my husband too!?  YAY!!




Pimp of Pimps said:



			Beating someone with a twig the lengh of your finger at most and being prohibited from leaving a mark does not qualify as beating.

Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but both my grandmothers disagree with you. Their fathers would beat them with twigs for "speaking nonsense" like "I want to study high school", "I don't want to marry when I'm older".  One of my grandmas never forgave him, not even in his sick death bed while he begged. I'm sure at least one would like to stomp you in the face with her wheelchair.*


----------



## maj1n (Feb 17, 2011)

From the Quran
*
 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,* and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for *those from whom ye fear rebellion, *admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and* beat them.* *Then if they obey you, *seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. 
-4:34


1. It is stated quite clearly women are to obey men (really husbands) because Allah made men superior to women

2.It is stated quite clearly you can beat women if you 'fear' them rebelling against you (ie not doing as you say).

The Quran is both sexist and advocates physical harm to women just for 'rebelling' against the husband.

No honest and decent person can defend this type of thing.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 17, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> But, just so you know, there is absolutely **zero sexism or misogyny in Islam. Reading the Quran without bias makes this very clear. I already stated that men do have more power than women in certain situations, but it works the other way as well. Islam does not command men to beat disobedient women. **You can only beat your wife, only as an absolute last resort and you are forbidden to actually physically harm them. The Quran provided all this in a time when wife beating was common and accepted, the Quran is against beating your wife. Beating someone with a twig the lengh of your finger at most and being prohibited from leaving a mark does not qualify as beating. Daughters do inherit half as much as sons, because in Islam the men are expected to carry the financial load (women can, but it is a necessity for men) **and so the son would have more need for the money. The girl will in all likelihood eventually be married, so she would have little need for the inherited money. However, in situations where the women won't be married then more money is given to the daughter than otherwise. *



Pimp of pimps, in a nutshell: _"There is no mysoginy in Islam. Because the husband can beat his wife only after other strategies have failed. It is then necessary to get her to accept her status as a slave.

Ah, also women should not inherit because slaves get everything bought for them (what an awesome life). Money? Don't be silly, what would you do with it?"_

Seriously, I know there are many muslim men who are respectful of women, especially in the west. But watching the muslims in this thread, it's really not surprising that Islam has such a catastrophic record & reputation with regards to women, and that Egypt is such a dangerous place for women.

You guys cannot accept the idea of a free woman.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> From the Quran


It's already quite clear from the way conflict resolution is explained in the quran, with the conflict escalating until the wife submits (no other possibility, including compromise, is accounted for). But thanks for pointing it out.

It's really disgusting to see these guys bragging about how domestic slavery is not mysoginy, and they probably don't even see what is wrong with them.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 17, 2011)

soulnova said:


> Such Off-topicnes!!
> 
> This was the work of Mob Mentally people! MOB MENTALLY.
> 
> ...



*If you really consider beating someone with a twig and not being able to leave any mark "beating" then sure Islam allows beating your wife. You'd have to be pretty stupid to seriously consider that a beating though. If your great grandfather did beat your grandmother with a twig (I doubt it, since twigs generally don't hurt at all) then he'd have to have done it in a non-Islamic way since doing it the Islamic way would make any injury impossible. *



impersonal said:


> Pimp of pimps, in a nutshell: _"There is no mysoginy in Islam. Because the husband can beat his wife only after other strategies have failed. It is then necessary to get her to accept her status as a slave.
> 
> Ah, also women should not inherit because slaves get everything bought for them (what an awesome life). Money? Don't be silly, what would you do with it?"_
> 
> ...



*Claiming I said something I never did tells me that you are incapable of coming up with an actual argument. Congratulations. 

If you looked at the Quranic verses through unbiased eyes you'd clearly see that there is no misogyny in Islam. Physically harming your wife is absolutely prohibited, no matter what. The purpose of the strategies you spoke of are not to determine if the husband should beat his wife, but to calm the husband down and stop him from doing something stupid, like beating his wife. For the record I'd never beat my wife, with a twig or otherwise. It's a disgusting thing to do. 

Also, women do inherit you illiterate orangutan. It only makes sense to give someone less money if they are going to get more money shortly afterward, it's only fair. The Quran also does take into account situations where the girl won't be marrying. *



> From the Quran
> *
> Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,*  and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So  good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath  guarded. As for *those from whom ye fear rebellion, *admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and* beat them.* *Then if they obey you, *seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
> -4:34
> ...


*Nice try, but here is the correct translation:*



> [4:34]  The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them  with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous  women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's  commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you  experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then  (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you  may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not  permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.


*As you can see nothing about the men being superior is written, just that they are commanded to be the bread winners. As in, the men have to make money to support his wife/family. That's not putting men above women, that's giving one gender a clear role to provide for the other. And yes women can earn money if they so choose, but it's not forced upon them like it is with the men. I already explained why "beating: in this verse is not the act of horror many people imagine. that actually causing harm to your wife is prohibited. *


----------



## hmph (Feb 17, 2011)

Nothing at all being written about superiority, like how women should obey men, or how woman should be coerced by word and deed into obeying man, or a statement expecting women to disagree to this arrangement and how to punish them and nothing at all expecting men to disagree. Because theres clearly nothing unfair or onesided about it


----------



## Soups (Feb 17, 2011)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *If you really consider beating someone with a twig and not being able to leave any mark "beating" then sure Islam allows beating your wife. You'd have to be pretty stupid to seriously consider that a beating though. If your great grandfather did beat your grandmother with a twig (I doubt it, since twigs generally don't hurt at all) then he'd have to have done it in a non-Islamic way since doing it the Islamic way would make any injury impossible. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regardless of whether the beating causes harm to your wife. The fact that it even says that after all solutions, beating is OK, shows that Islam is misogynistic. Talk all you want about what it means and whether you cause harm, it says beat. BEAAAAAAAAAAT. I cant understand how you cant see that this shows sexism. You put it up yourself. You accuse someone of being an orangutan for not reading. But the thing you put up yourself says in some circumstances if a woman is "rebellious" its ok to beat them. That is not ok. 

By the way, i dont think islam in of itself is particularly sexist although is slightly, no more than any of the other major religions. I just cant understand how you can write the whole beat thing and just kind of ignore it. Then say other people cant read. Maybe im missing something? it does say you can beat rebellious women if you tried everything else? what?


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 17, 2011)

siyrean said:


> by that logic, no humans should ever be upheld to any sort of standard _ever_, because someone will always disagree. it's like trying to qualify art, but still i think most people would believe that the Sistine chapel is a great piece of work then the scribble i just made on a note pad, the same way most people would believe that a culture that works towards creating equality is better than one that shits on such ideals.



No, by my logic, no culture, idea, or in your case, work of art should be held to a standard, because there will always be disagreement on these things; that disagreement is easily justified.

While a majority would agree that the Sistine Chapel is the world's most magnificent work of art, not every one would.

Islam did not commit this crime, these men committed this crime.



maj1n said:


> Then i guess all the egyptians are fucking stupid because their sick of the brutal regime? its just different isn't it? and comes down to opinion?
> 
> Your logic is self-defeating, and any cursory usage of logic can see how silly it is.



I never made any mention to the actual Egyptian revolution. Clarify what you're saying, because you didn't attack my logic, you talked about something completely different.



> If you quite emotionally say a belief in a culture being superior is akin or leads to 'genocide' then your automatically saying a culture that believes in its superiority is VERY VERY BAD.
> 
> Which means your logic is self-defeating, you think its stupid to judge cultures, but you go ahead and judge many.
> 
> ...



Yes, I would agree that a culture that considers itself to be superior is very, very bad. For one, the Nazi ideology is very bad. Do I believe that Nazi's are inferior to me because their ideology is different from mine, and I find myself disgusted with most of what they believe? No.

And this is where I realize you don't understand what I'm talking about. Forgive my earlier posts if they hadn't made this clear:

I do not believe it wrong to judge cultures. I judge Nazi's, or any other culture that follows medieval stances, but here is where we disagree: *I don't believe you can hold an idea, culture or belief to the standard of inferior, or superior.*

Simple as that. It's in no way hypocritical. Feel free to think a culture is dumb, feel free to feel that a culture is medieval; but to call it inferior, meaning that is inherently worse, and less important, than another culture, is foolish, and not well thought-out.



> No it isn't subjective, as someone who has friends whom have been harassed by certain oppressive Governments, there are definitely superior cultures.



The idea of superiority, and inferiority is very subjective. As someone who's lived under Lasana Conte, and then in Cote d'ivoire, I guess I would know. But mentioning that isn't even necessary, seeing basic logic will tell you that not everyone agrees in what is better, and what is worse.



impersonal said:


> Okay, let's go through this as clearly and exhaustively as possible, because your posts are very entangled. Let's see if I can point to you the exact problem with your stance.
> 
> *First, imagine you are amoral.*
> You look at the world without judging what is going on; you notice what is happening here and there, and register these facts.
> ...



I would reply completely to that massive wall of text, but it seems unnecessary, as I can counter as a whole.

You, in no sense, actually got at what I was actually talking about.

I'll rephrase everything, as I possibly wasn't clear enough in my previous posts.

I do not believe it is immoral to judge a culture. Yes, you have every right to look at a culture through a moral, or immoral perspective. We agree that the harsh treatment of woman in the Middle East, and in some parts of Islam, are wrong, they are immoral. Yes, we agree that murder is bad, it is immoral. We agree that generosity is good, because it is moral. But, there is a difference between a culture being more moral than another culture, than a culture being superior to another culture. I can provide several examples of this.

1) Scott Walker's recent travesty in my own state of WI. In my sense, his want to destroy Labor Unions in WI is wrong, it is immoral, but, I assure you that there are many people out there who would disagree. But, does that mean that Scott Walker and his followers are 'inferior' to me, because I find their view point to be immoral? No. And vice-versa, since I believe in protecting the Labor Unions, and not privatizing our education system, does that make me 'inferior' to those who do?

The answer is obvious. Scott Walker and I stand on different sides of the world. What is moral and right to him, is immoral and sickening to me. Scott Walker is not better, or lesser than me because of this, I am not better or lesser than Scott Walker because of this.

2) A member of the Ku Klux Klan. Most members of the KKK believe that they are superior, in every sense of the word, to me. I certainly believe that the KKK is *wrong* and *immoral* because of the fact that they think that I, and other minorities, are worthless. But, does that mean that I, since I have the generally more accepted moral standpoint, am better than members off the KKK? Of course I'm not, in any way.

You're confusing 'morality & immorality' with 'superior & inferior'. It's not hard to believe something, or someone, to be more immoral, or moral, and still understand that it's not inferior, meaning inherently less than, something or someone that you believe to be more moral, or immoral.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 17, 2011)

How did this turn into a debate about Islam? Doesn't Islamic law prescribe the death penalty for rapists? 

Okay then, so there is no relevance to Islam, at least no more than instances of rape in America are about Christianity.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 17, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> You're confusing 'morality & immorality' with 'superior & inferior'. It's not hard to believe something, or someone, to be more immoral, or moral, and still understand that it's not inferior, meaning inherently less than, something or someone that you believe to be more moral, or immoral.


You are talking nonsense about individual persons when the topic is cultures.

You have two sets of moral rules. One is almost the same as "true morality" (the moral framework discussed above), the other is completely different. The former is superior to the latter. Agree?


			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> I do not believe it wrong to judge cultures. I judge Nazi's, or any other culture that follows medieval stances, but here is where we disagree: I don't believe you can hold an idea, culture or belief to the standard of inferior, or superior.
> 
> Simple as that. It's in no way hypocritical. Feel free to think a culture is dumb, feel free to feel that a culture is medieval; but to call it inferior, meaning that is inherently worse, and less important, than another culture, is foolish, and not well thought-out.


So you give value judgment about cultures, but refuse to call them superior/inferior. That does not make sense.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 17, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> How did this turn into a debate about Islam? Doesn't Islamic law prescribe the death penalty for rapists?
> 
> Okay then, so there is no relevance to Islam, at least no more than instances of rape in America are about Christianity.


Except that America's law system isn't Christian nor is the government, now take your trolling elsewhere.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 17, 2011)

impersonal said:


> You are talking nonsense about individual persons when the topic is cultures.
> 
> You have two sets of moral rules. One is almost the same as "true morality" (the moral framework discussed above), the other is completely different. The former is superior to the latter. Agree?



Instead of calling it nonsense, tell me why its wrong. Maybe I could benefit from your infinite wisdom, impersonal.

Disagreed. I have one set. A set of morals cannot be superior to another, as the idea of superior and inferior is subjective.



> So you give value judgment about cultures, but refuse to call them superior/inferior. That does not make sense.



It makes perfect sense. You just refuse to accept it. I can believe that something is wrong, and not believe it to be inferior, and certainly not believe myself to be superior because I think I'm right. It's not that hard a concept to wrap yourself around.


----------



## Psallo a Cappella (Feb 17, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> And how is the *emo culture* inferior to any other culture? What right do you have to deem someone's cultural practices as inferior to others? The only person who can rightfully make such a claim is someone who's practiced all the world's cultures, and that certainly applies to none of us.


 
Seriously? I lol'd.

Oh, and it's a subculture.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Feb 17, 2011)

Someone needs to put a summary post at the top of every page to tell us how far off topic the thread has gone.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 17, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Instead of calling it nonsense, tell me why its wrong.


I told you already; I'm discussing cultures and you're discussing individual people. That doesn't make sense. Focus.


OutlawJohn said:


> Disagreed. I have one set. A set of morals cannot be superior to another, as the idea of superior and inferior is subjective.


Superior and inferior is of course dependant on some sort of referential. For example, the Eiffel tower is superior *in height* to Big Ben (I don't think there's much debate on this, so we'll call it objective). This is measured with a ruler (or other/better tools of mearing height), which allows to give an accepted height for each building and the compare the two numbers obtqined.

Here we are talking about superiority in terms of moral worth; e.g. which culture it is better to adopt (in terms of its prescriptions for behavior). Determining this is done by measuring the prescriptions of both cultures using a single moral framework (true morality). Both cultures are compared against true morality, and the one that differs most gets a lower appreciation.




OutlawJohn said:


> It makes perfect sense. You just refuse to accept it. I can believe that something is wrong, and not believe it to be inferior, and certainly not believe myself to be superior because I think I'm right. It's not that hard a concept to wrap yourself around.


Again the nonsense. Why do you, out of nowhere, start discussing individual superiority/inferiority? Do you care about the topic at all? Cultures.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Feb 17, 2011)

hmph said:


> Nothing at all being written about superiority, like how women should obey men, or how woman should be coerced by word and deed into obeying man, or a statement expecting women to disagree to this arrangement and how to punish them and nothing at all expecting men to disagree. Because theres clearly nothing unfair or onesided about it



*None of that is written. What the hell are you smoking? Men aren't said to be superior to women, just the "bread winners." Women shouldn't be coerced any more than men should, and the Quran doesn't say otherwise. The only reason there isn't a statement expecting women to disagree to this arrangement is because that wasn't what the specific verse was about, that doesn't mean the Quran doesn't mention women who disagree to the arrangement. .The other stuff you mentioned as nothing being there is mentioned in other verses. *



Soups said:


> Regardless of whether the beating causes harm to your wife. The fact that it even says that after all solutions, beating is OK, shows that Islam is misogynistic. Talk all you want about what it means and whether you cause harm, it says beat. BEAAAAAAAAAAT. I cant understand how you cant see that this shows sexism. You put it up yourself. You accuse someone of being an orangutan for not reading. But the thing you put up yourself says in some circumstances if a woman is "rebellious" its ok to beat them. That is not ok.
> 
> By the way, i dont think islam in of itself is particularly sexist although is slightly, no more than any of the other major religions. I just cant understand how you can write the whole beat thing and just kind of ignore it. Then say other people cant read. Maybe im missing something? it does say you can beat rebellious women if you tried everything else? what?



*Not true. Misogyny is classified as a hatred of women. You could say that the verse makes Islam seem slightly sexist. I disagree with that, but it's not a wholly unreasonable perspective I suppose. To say that this makes Islam misogynistic though is really just plain wrong. *


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 17, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Except that America's law system isn't Christian nor is the government, now take your trolling elsewhere.



Oh dear. 



> Sharia law in Egypt applies only in personal status issues - such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody of children. *Otherwise the legal system is entirely a secular one, on the model of the French legal system. *




Their criminal law is secular, so laws applying to rape have are actually based on French laws.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 17, 2011)

Psallo a Cappella said:


> Seriously? I lol'd.
> 
> Oh, and it's a subculture.



Cool bro.



impersonal said:


> I told you already; I'm discussing cultures and you're discussing individual people. That doesn't make sense. Focus.



I only discussed 1 individual person. I also talked about the racist KKK, organization, which can be considered a culture. The logic can be applied to both. Something being different in a moral sense, doesn't make it inferior.



> Superior and inferior is of course dependant on some sort of referential. For example, the Eiffel tower is superior *in height* to Big Ben (I don't think there's much debate on this, so we'll call it objective). This is measured with a ruler (or other/better tools of mearing height), which allows to give an accepted height for each building and the compare the two numbers obtqined.
> 
> Here we are talking about superiority in terms of moral worth; e.g. which culture it is better to adopt (in terms of its prescriptions for behavior). Determining this is done by measuring the prescriptions of both cultures using a single moral framework (true morality). Both cultures are compared against true morality, and the one that differs most gets a lower appreciation.



Except there's a difference between comparing the Eiffel Tower, and Big Ben, and comparing cultures. The Eiffel Tower is taller than Big Ben, this is an undisputed fact. Why? Because we have units of measurement to do this. No one can deny, that in our human measurements, that the ET, is taller than BB. That is *objective.* 2 ft will always be taller than 1ft, no matter who your talking to, anywhere in the world.

But, when it comes to comparing cultures, this doesn't work, because this 'true morality' that you speak of, doesn't really exist. There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal standard for morals that can be studied and proven by science, for us to use and compare the morals of one culture, to another. Unless of course you can show me this.

So, since there is no objective moral standard, morals can only exist in a subjective way. Thus, it is impossible to call one moral ideology 'inferior' or 'superior' to another. Can we agree that one is different? Can we agree that we prefer our western society to Middle Eastern society? Of course. But seeing as there is no moral standard in the universe to compare with, calling Middle Eastern society 'inferior' is impossible.



> Again the nonsense. Why do you, out of nowhere, start discussing individual superiority/inferiority? Do you care about the topic at all? Cultures.



You're clearly ignoring what I'm writing. I didn't compare individuals, I compared the beliefs and morals of individuals, and that applies to any discussion considering morals.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 18, 2011)

outlaw said:
			
		

> I do not believe it wrong to judge cultures. I judge Nazi's, or any other culture that follows medieval stances, but here is where we disagree: I don't believe you can hold an idea, culture or belief to the standard of inferior, or superior


Do you even understand that your action of arguing against anyone in this thread automatically means you believe your belief is superior (ie right) compared to the one your arguing against?

The sheer ridiculousness of your stance is amazing.

With your idea, laws as we know it, and even a moral system, would be meaningless, in other words, to you, racism is something we cannot say is wrong.

The moment you say something is wrong, is the moment you say another particular belief or idea is superior.

In fact, your stance if it was truly honest, you could not possibly criticize anyone in this thread, because you cannot say their idea or belief is wrong.

But you do.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> But, when it comes to comparing cultures, this doesn't work, because this 'true morality' that you speak of, doesn't really exist. There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal standard for morals that can be studied and proven by science, for us to use and compare the morals of one culture, to another. Unless of course you can show me this.
> 
> So, since there is no objective moral standard, morals can only exist in a subjective way. Thus, it is impossible to call one moral ideology 'inferior' or 'superior' to another. Can we agree that one is different? Can we agree that we prefer our western society to Middle Eastern society? Of course. But seeing as there is no moral standard in the universe to compare with, calling Middle Eastern society 'inferior' is impossible.


Wrong, our perspective as humans is bound by our human perspective, sounds obvious doesn't it?

To try and argue stupid shit like 'morality is subjective because a rock doesn't believe in the morality of humans' and using this to a conclusion 'so we can't even judge someones actions as right or wrong because it is subjective'.

Is pure fucking stupid thinking.

When we judge things as 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior' or 'better' in terms of culture, it is always bound by our collective human perspective.

It is for this reason humans can agree on thing's, it is why society has become more and more homogenized as more and more people realize what is better for humans.

Again, if you were honest about your own stance, then you wouldn't even try and criticize anyone in this thread, because 'your perspective is human and thus subjective'.

You say 'we can agree it is different', how? taking your perspective honestly, it being 'different' is *entirely subjective*.

Get it? see how ridiculous your own words are.

I'll explain it to you in a simpler way, 1+1=2, is this true? no it fucking isn't in a purely objective perspective since a rock doesn't know this, but we as humans agree to this because we understand it as a concept bound by our similar and collective human perspective (ie mathematics).

get it?


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 18, 2011)

@outlawjohn, you were jumping to "thinking yourself superior is wrong" when the discussion was about culture, aka "my culture is superior to that culture" something i can believe without ever thinking myself superior....seeing Its not a great feat to be Born in the right culture

@pimp Its Absolutely ridiculous to act as religion as in its text and tradition has no impact or influence on its adherents/followers, and consequently, influence on the culture. Dont bullshit yourself mr "unbiased".


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 18, 2011)

Outlaw that your argument is very inferior than a lot superior arguments I have seen. You can not contest this, since you don't believe in the existence of any objective facts other than things you can directly count with a ruler. Which is a primitive stance but convenient for the one debating against you. You also can not judge whether this post is rude towards you since you can't tell me that there are universal objective standards of rudeness, can you?  

*Spoiler*: __ 







Anyway Outlaw reread that massive all of text post from Impersonal again. The one in which you replied with this:


> I do not believe it is immoral to judge a culture. Yes, you have every right to look at a culture through a moral, or immoral perspective. We agree that the harsh treatment of woman in the Middle East, and in some parts of Islam, are wrong, they are immoral. Yes, we agree that murder is bad, it is immoral. We agree that generosity is good, because it is moral. But, there is a difference between a culture being more moral than another culture, than a culture being superior to another culture. I can provide several examples of this.



Here you say that there are superior and inferior moral standards (I wonder if you used a ruler to find them) but you don't like the words inferior and superior. Previously you said that such mindsets lead to genocide, and that probably means that everyone is genocidal. Anyway at times you agree that there are superior and inferior cultures as far as moral standards go but you have an aversion to the words superior and inferior. You even said something like one who can experience all cultures can judge them. But now you don't see any objectivity at all in morality (and not only morality). 

You are flipflopping.  I notice the contradictions in your logic and I think that if you accept something you might surpass your confusion. I can believe that you or even I am inferior at something yet it does not mean that I support violence against what is deemed inferior. Someone is X, and in various things believes that Z cultures are superior to the culture of the place he  lives. Or overall superior. He wants to mimic them in those aspects they are superior.

Are there some aspects of cultures that we might be unable to judge? Maybe we might not see all the positive? Its possible.  However as I said a culture that practices female genital mutilation is losing points and is inferior to another culture which does not practice it as far that is concerned. If we try to judge cultures at a sum, we will need to compare more things of course. And we can do so, and reach a conclusion that a culture is worse for human prosperity than anther culture.

 That does not necessarily mean that the backwards culture should replace all its practices with the ones of the superior culture. It can improve itself and remain as distinct as possible while changing itself. Modernize without losing its authenticity as a different culture, to the extend that it is possible. Of course a lot of things that were cultural practices of that culture would probably have to go.* I am not sure if that is your fear and the reason for your current stance, but belief in superiority in morality,cultures, ideologies, whatever, does not lead to cultural imperialism. To people fighting to kill those they deem of inferior ideology/morality/whatever. 
* 


Also the comparison between inferior and superior cultures does not necessarily have to do with real life examples. It is in fact a comparison that all cultures should put themselves into, because there is no such thing as a perfect anything, and there is always room for superiority. So all current cultures are inferior to a hypothetical superior example. And all of them have room for improvement. The qualitative comparison's purpose is not for people to glorify themselves but is there as a means to improve. So using my ruler I dislike any ideas of superiority that are set in stone.  Like that a morality is inspired by God and that people need not to evaluate the situation but follow upon a morality set on stone which might have flawed principles. Where people are not allowed to judge the validity of those principles and improve upon them. No, there is room to improve and everything can be inferior to a superior possible alternative. 





> Except there's a difference between comparing the Eiffel Tower, and Big Ben, and comparing cultures. The Eiffel Tower is taller than Big Ben, this is an undisputed fact. Why? Because we have units of measurement to do this. No one can deny, that in our human measurements, that the ET, is taller than BB. That is objective. 2 ft will always be taller than 1ft, no matter who your talking to, anywhere in the world.
> 
> But, when it comes to comparing cultures, this doesn't work, because this 'true morality' that you speak of, doesn't really exist. There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal standard for morals that can be studied and proven by science, for us to use and compare the morals of one culture, to another. Unless of course you can show me this.
> 
> So, since there is no objective moral standard, morals can only exist in a subjective way. Thus, it is impossible to call one moral ideology 'inferior' or 'superior' to another. Can we agree that one is different? Can we agree that we prefer our western society to Middle Eastern society? Of course. But seeing as there is no moral standard in the universe to compare with, calling Middle Eastern society 'inferior' is impossible.



I kill you, you die, misery happens. (I hope you don't need me to explain the whys). I can show you stories of human misery and you can tell me if you can quantify them with your ruler or not.  A society with such occurrences is undesirable. We can quantify the effects of morality and of actions. Hence we need to make it illegal for people to kill each other. An extremely simplistic example. We have been trying to quantify the morality of actions and how they help or damage human societies four thousands of years. And trying to find the best laws, moralities, cultures, ideologies, within to rule ourselfs. But frankly reread the Impersonal's post I told you about.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Feb 18, 2011)

Why are any of you bothering to have a discussion on the treatment of women with a person whose username is "Pimp of Pimps'? 

Lost cause, people; fuck him.



Anyway, I haven't been paying much attention to this; is there any news on her current status?  Is she all right?


----------



## CrazyAries (Feb 18, 2011)

> *Lara Logan in Cairo - 'I will never forget how scared I was?*
> 
> * Women correspondents are often at greater risk in certain trouble hotspots,    says veteran war correspondent Janine di Giovanni   *
> 
> ...




I have always wondered why news outlets have felt the need to throw their journalists into such dangerous situations.  These are far more dangerous circumstances for women.  Is there just the belief that this is the best way of getting news?  Is this worth the risk?


----------



## WT (Feb 18, 2011)

maj1n said:


> From the Quran
> *
> Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,* and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for *those from whom ye fear rebellion, *admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and* beat them.* *Then if they obey you, *seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
> -4:34
> ...



Different translations have different words. Anyway, lets take the translation you have provided above. 

You have to ask yourself, in what trait is the Quran saying that "men excel women". The obvious answer is in strength because the following verses read that men spend their property. This verse isn't looking at a general view on who's superior or inferior, only pointing out the obvious physical traits (even which you cannot deny) and according to these physical traits, assigns different duties to the sexes. Man in nature (in general) is superior to women in physical strength, this is the obvious trait that is identified and thus the man is seen as the protector in the family.

It is also true from a natural standpoint that within a family, there exists a leader (you can see it through out the animal kingdom as well). Since the man is above women in physical strength and earns, the Quran gives the man this role. Note, this is speaking of a general, aggregate case. For individual cases, it can be different.

Anyway, this doesn't point to sexism in any way.  Muslims accept that man and woman are equal but are not identical. Based on their nature, they are given different roles. The Quran does mention that men are not like women (or is it the vice versa?). Anyway, the Quran speaks from a practical standpoint.

As for the obedience part, since men are assigned as the leaders of a family, it naturally follows that other members stay obedient. However, this does not mean the woman does not have a voice and should be subject to injustice and physical violence. The perfect role model for Muslim men was Prophet Muhammad, and we know that Prophet Muhammad was a great lover of women and was extremely soft towards them.

Essentially, women in Islam are given

personal respect,

respectable married status,

legitimacy and maintenance for their children,

the right to negotiate marriage terms of their choice,

to refuse any marriage that does not please them,

the right to obtain divorce from their husbands, even on the grounds that they can't stand them (Mawdudi),

custody of their children after divorce,

independent property of their own,

the right and duty to obtain education,

the right to work if they need or want it,

equality of reward for equal deeds,

the right to participate fully in public life and have their voices heard by those in power,


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Feb 18, 2011)

I thought the Koran doesn't promote this kind of attitude? Why did these guys do it.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Feb 18, 2011)

mybowandarrow70 said:


> I thought the Koran doesn't promote this kind of attitude? Why did these guys do it.



Maybe because they are barbaric pigs?


----------



## Ludwig The Holy Blade (Feb 18, 2011)

> The perfect role model for Muslim men was Prophet Muhammad, and we know that Prophet Muhammad was a great lover of women and was extremely soft towards them.



Yup, he was especially "soft" for 9 year old girls.

In all seriousness though why are you lying to yourself? Maybe in some utopian muslim society women would be given all the privileges you speak of, but such a place doesn't exist. It's QUITE FUCKING OBVIOUS that discrimination against women runs rampant in EVERY society governed by Islam. Don't even try to deny this.

Also, why did you bold the part about beating women if you aren't even going to address it? Oh right, it's because it's completely indefensible.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 18, 2011)

White Tiger said:
			
		

> Muslims accept that man and woman are equal but are not identical. Based on their nature, they are given different roles.



As explained in all your posts, these roles are:
*The man orders, the woman obeys.
*
If the woman does not obey, there is a relatively gentle procedure aiming not at finding a compromise, but at getting the woman to obey unconditionally.

You call this _equality_? Do you find it surprising at all that such rules leads to huge amounts of violence (sexual, physical, psychological) and injustices against women?


----------



## N120 (Feb 18, 2011)

Doggie said:


> Yup, he was especially "soft" for 9 year old girls.
> 
> In all seriousness though why are you lying to yourself? Maybe in some utopian muslim society women would be given all the privileges you speak of, but such a place doesn't exist. It's QUITE FUCKING OBVIOUS that discrimination against women runs rampant in EVERY society governed by Islam. Don't even try to deny this.
> 
> Also, why did you bold the part about beating women if you aren't even going to address it? Oh right, it's because it's completely indefensible.



I agree, this utopian society doesnt exist in the muslim world we see today, but neither does it exist in the west and we shouldnt pretend otherwise.  

Theres Discrimination happening in every society and it's something we need to work towards eradicating. Simply pointing fingers and generalising a group of people while ignoring the same problems that exist within our own community isnt the way forward. If you got a better solution that actually works then lets see it.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 18, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> I only discussed 1 individual person. I also talked about the racist KKK, organization, which can be considered a culture. The logic can be applied to both. Something being different in a moral sense, doesn't make it inferior.


No, you talked about _members_ of the KKK. What we are discussing here should be the rules that can be abstracted from the KKK (e.g., racism, beating blacks and latinos to death, etc). This is what you would have talked about if you were able to stick to the topic of the discussion.




			
				Outlaw said:
			
		

> But, when it comes to comparing cultures, this doesn't work, because this 'true morality' that you speak of, doesn't really exist. There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal standard for morals that can be studied and proven by science, for us to use and compare the morals of one culture, to another. Unless of course you can show me this.
> 
> So, since there is no objective moral standard, morals can only exist in a subjective way. Thus, it is impossible to call one moral ideology 'inferior' or 'superior' to another. Can we agree that one is different? Can we agree that we prefer our western society to Middle Eastern society? Of course. But seeing as there is no moral standard in the universe to compare with, calling Middle Eastern society 'inferior' is impossible.


Okay, let's go through this _again_ : reread my long post from before, and give a proper response to it.


Here's a summary of how the argumentation went so far. P is proponent (me), O is opponent (you):
P1: A culture that supports misoginy is inferior
O1:_ No culture can be inferior to another one_
P2: Yes they are. A culture that supports immoral things is inferior to one that supports moral things.
O2: _No, because [moral] superiority/inferiority of cultures is subjective._
P3: The argument that morality is subjective cannot be used here (with proof)
O3: _I'm not talking about morality but about superiority/inferiority. Superiority/inferiority is subjective._
P3: Superiority/inferiority can be objective (for example if the criterion is height).
O3: _But the criterion here is morality. And morality is subjective.
_
P4 = repeat P3.

As you can see, you have yet to give a proper retort to my (long) argument in p3. I spent a bit of time writing it, so I'm not letting you get away with a brainfart about superiority/inferiority, which was merely a poor attempt at dodging the problem.


----------



## N120 (Feb 18, 2011)

impersonal said:


> As explained in all your posts, these roles are:
> *The man orders, the woman obeys.
> *
> If the woman does not obey, there is a relatively gentle procedure aiming not at finding a compromise, but at getting the woman to obey unconditionally.
> ...



 Not really, Man must also obey his wife. In islam men and women are given seperate pimary roles in society(I know that doesnt wit well with everyone here) and with that they also have conditions and rights set in place to ensure both can fulfill those basic roles as best they can and both are entitled seek/demand those rights from one another.

women have just as much right to get what they are entitled to just as the men are entitled to ask for theres.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Not really, Man must also obey his wife. In islam men and women are given seperate pimary roles in society(I know that doesnt wit well with everyone here) and with that they also have conditions and rights set in place to ensure both can fulfill those basic roles as best they can and both are entitled seek/demand those rights from one another.
> 
> women have just as much right to get what they are entitled to just as the men are entitled to ask for theres.



The thing is, if you look at what is actually happening in muslim societies - it's not like that. And if you look at both White Tiger's and Pimp of pimps' posts, it is implicit that the man orders and the woman obeys, that there is no equality.

Of course, if other Muslims practice Islam in a different manner, that's all for the better. I know it happens, especially for Muslims living on "non-Muslim" soil. It's rare in most predominantly muslim countries though.

I will not get into an argument about whether the Quran is responsible or whether it is all due to bad interpretations / bad practice of religion by some people. I'm just talking here about the _prevailing _culture, and in particular religious culture, that can be observed, regardless of the exact causes, among _most_ Muslim groups. This culture is sexist.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Not really, Man must also obey his wife. In islam men and women are given seperate pimary roles in society(I know that doesnt wit well with everyone here) and with that they also have conditions and rights set in place to ensure both can fulfill those basic roles as best they can and both are entitled seek/demand those rights from one another.
> 
> women have just as much right to get what they are entitled to just as the men are entitled to ask for theres.



You are right on one thing, it doesn't wit well with most people here. I have to repeat myself...

*Nobody should tell anyone what their place in society is. They have to decide that by themselves.*


----------



## N120 (Feb 18, 2011)

impersonal said:


> The thing is, if you look at what is actually happening in muslim societies - it's not like that. And if you look at both White Tiger's and Pimp of pimps' posts, it is implicit that the man orders and the woman obeys, that there is no equality.
> 
> Of course, if other Muslims practice Islam in a different manner, that's all for the better. I know it happens, especially for Muslims living on "non-Muslim" soil. It's rare in most predominantly muslim countries though.
> 
> I will not get into an argument about whether the Quran is responsible or whether it is all due to bad interpretations / bad practice of religion by some people. I'm just talking here about the prevailing culture, and in particular religious culture, that can be observed, regardless of the exact causes, among Muslim groups. This culture is sexist.



Partially agree, there are many example you and i can pick out that shows how badly some women are treated in these societies and theres really no excuses that can be bought forward to justify it, so i wont. It needs to condemned and we should all do that.

But if you think thats the only way all muslims wether they be in the west or abroad behave than you are wrong. You'd probably be surprised how much a woman is respected in some of these communities(both here and abroad) aswell how successful some women have become. 

saying that though i agree some cultures can be sexist, but most of the muslim population is still young and its changing in both attitude and the way it works at a fast pace globally.  No longer is it uncommon to see a hijabi sister working in schools,unis,labs or other areas, its not longer uncommon to see them in the media or engaging in politics and islam, It's not perfect, no society is but it is a good sign for our future as an community.



soulnova said:


> You are right on one thing, it doesn't wit well with most people here. I have to repeat myself...
> 
> *Nobody should tell anyone what their place in society is. They have to decide that by themselves.*



Like i said primary role, not the only role.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> But if you think thats the only way all muslims wether they be in the west or abroad behave than you are wrong.


No, I agree with you on that. The mere existence of Bhutto, for example, is proof that even radical muslim countries are not all like Saudi Arabia. What I've been arguing for is a _generalization_, over the group of all Muslims, and over the various groups of Muslims constituting it. I certainly do not mean that every Muslim community, and much less every single Muslim, is sexist.

What I'm saying is a bit like saying that college graduates are more intelligent than high-school drop outs (_"because the high-school-dropout culture is not very much in favor of intellectualism"_). This would be true in general. But there is an _uncountable_ number of exceptions. I have never intended to say that there were none.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> I agree, this utopian society doesnt exist in the muslim world we see today, but neither does it exist in the west and we shouldnt pretend otherwise.
> 
> Theres Discrimination happening in every society and it's something we need to work towards eradicating. Simply pointing fingers and generalising a group of people while ignoring the same problems that exist within our own community isnt the way forward. If you got a better solution that actually works then lets see it.



This is just plain ridiculous. No, western society is not perfect. But yes, it is vastly superior to every Islamic society in the world. I'd say women on average getting less money than men is a little better than being beaten if they disobey their husband. Can I steal someone's wallet and then tell the police that there's people stealing a hundred times as much in this city?

Besides, it's nice that you think we should work towards improving the situation rather than pointing fingers, but the Koran cannot improve, that's the nature of dogmatic religion. You can't erase the sexism, the encouragement of domestic violence. As long as that exists, we can and will point fingers.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 18, 2011)

impersonal said:


> No, you talked about _members_ of the KKK. What we are discussing here should be the rules that can be abstracted from the KKK (e.g., racism, beating blacks and latinos to death, etc). This is what you would have talked about if you were able to stick to the topic of the discussion.



I've stayed completely on topics. Even if I've been talking about individual people, I've been talking about their morals and beliefs, which is comparable, and thus can be used as examples. Answer them, or stop mentioning them.



> Okay, let's go through this _again_ : reread my long post from before, and give a proper response to it.
> 
> Here's a summary of how the argumentation went so far. P is proponent (me), O is opponent (you):
> P1: A culture that supports misoginy is inferior
> ...



I replied to your long post just fine, because the entire thing is based off one big false idea.

Superiority and inferiority is only objective when talking about things are objective. The height of the Eiffel Tower is objective. The height of Big Ben is objective. Thus, the Eiffel Tower being superior in height to Big Ben is objective, and it cannot be denied, because we, through the use of science and observing the world, have created units of measurement, and those cannot be denied, because 2 will always be bigger than 1. Simple as that.

Your argument is not that type of scenario. Its impossible to use superior and inferior in an objective way, against something that appears only in subjective forms.

For example, what if I asked, is the Eiffel Tower superior in beauty to Big Ben. The answers would differ. That is the type of scenario this. Since there is no objective form of *beauty,* meaning that there is no observable, universal standard for us to compare them to, then saying that one is superior to the other in this end, is impossible.

The same applies to the idea of morals. There is no such thing as *objective morality.* There is no naturally observable phenomenon for us to use in order to compare the morals of one culture to another.

To make this easier for you understand:

You: Superior and inferior can be used objectively, because we agree that the Eiffel Tower is superior to Big Ben in height.

The problem with that? We have units of measurement for height.

We do not have units of measurement for morals. Thus, while we can disagree with the customs of a culture, we cannot, rightfully, with any scientific backing, call it inferior.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Like i said primary role, not the only role.



"You must be an obedient wife, and maybe you can teach on the side" is not good enough. Sorry. 

All the religious books are backwards on different levels.


----------



## N120 (Feb 18, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> This is just plain ridiculous. No, western society is not perfect. *But yes, it is vastly superior to every Islamic society in the world. I'd say women on average getting less money than men is a little better than being beaten if they disobey their husband*. Can I steal someone's wallet and then tell the police that there's people stealing a hundred times as much in this city?
> 
> Besides, it's nice that you think we should work towards improving the situation rather than pointing fingers, but the Koran cannot improve, that's the nature of dogmatic religion. You can't erase the sexism, the encouragement of domestic violence. As long as that exists, we can and will point fingers.




Right, so are you saying domestic abuse, exploitation, discrimination and violence against women isnt a big problem in the west? 

I could undestand your claim to superiority if we had at some point overcome these problems in society, but we havent. The stats arent getting any better here than they are anywhere else, in fact its pretty shocking how bad it actully is.

 This attitude that we have all the solutions to the worlds problems when in reality we have a hard enough time trying solve our own is becoming hurdle.



> "You must be an obedient wife, and maybe you can teach on the side" is not good enough. Sorry.
> 
> All the religious books are backwards on different levels



Theres nothing wrong with being a wife who also works, many women do that. But, if its not for you then you can pick either or neither tbh, which ever suits you. :S


----------



## Punpun (Feb 18, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> The same applies to the idea of morals. There is no such thing as *objective morality.* There is no naturally observable phenomenon for us to use in order to compare the morals of one culture to another.
> 
> 
> We do not have units of measurement for morals. Thus, while we can disagree with the customs of a culture, we cannot, rightfully, with any scientific backing, call it inferior.



Wrong. You can use history and show the inegality of those civilisation by comparing them to civilissation of the past who were inequal and were replaced later by more fair and just society.

You can also judge a culture with the "units of measurements" "value" What did this culture achieved, what did it do. and so on.


----------



## Soups (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Right, so are you saying domestic abuse, exploitation, discrimination and violence against women isnt a big problem in the west?
> 
> I could undestand your claim to superiority if we had at some point overcome these problems in society, but we havent. The stats arent getting any better here than they are anywhere else, in fact its pretty shocking how bad it actully is.
> 
> This attitude that we have all the solutions to the worlds problems when in reality we have a hard enough time trying solve our own is becoming hurdle.



I believe your missing his point slightly. Whilst western countries do have massive problems involving sexism and domestic violence. These are not built into the culture or supported. In Muslim countries around the world, sexism and domestic violence is to some degree supported or at least ignored.


----------



## solid-soul (Feb 18, 2011)

how did you guys get from rape...to religion, to sexism ect....?


----------



## Punpun (Feb 18, 2011)

Are they not  fundamentally the same thing ?


----------



## soulnova (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Right, so are you saying domestic abuse, exploitation, discrimination and violence against women isnt a big problem in the west?




Every other member posting in this thread seems clearly against violence towards women and they call for gender equality. 

You are supporting the practice dictated by a book that allows wives to be beaten with a twig if they are rebellious. Because if it doesn't leave marks, then it doesn't count as a beating. 

 

That's as low as saying drug-rape is not "rape rape".  Guess who comes as backward.


----------



## N120 (Feb 18, 2011)

Soups said:


> I believe your missing his point slightly. Whilst western countries do have massive problems involving sexism and domestic violence. *These are not built into the culture or supported*. In Muslim countries around the world, sexism and domestic violence is to some degree supported or at least ignored.



then how do we explain our situation then? sexism and abuse didnt just pop out of nowhere? its been going on for as far back as i can remember and even before that.

the fact is we had these elements in our history as part of our societal view on women and these things still remain today, some elements still think its okay and many cries for help are are still ignored,silenced or swept under the carpet.

it's really no different.

ne way im late, wont be able to reply to anymore posts that come my way for few days, interesting debate too. damn


----------



## Punpun (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> then how do we explain our situation then? sexism and abuse didnt just pop out of nowhere? its been going on for as far back as i can remember and even before that.
> 
> the fact is we had these elements in our history as part of our societal view on women and these things still remain, some elements still think its okay and many are are still ignored.



You are missing the fact that laws now exists condemning those behaviour (sexism..) and that our society is becoming more and more equal on those matter. It is even more true in the Scandinavian country.

Wich ain't what's happening on those islamic republic whose republic are only names.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Right, so are you saying domestic abuse, exploitation, discrimination and violence against women isnt a big problem in the west?



Not as big a problem as it is in Islamic countries. Hell, domestic abuse is hardly considered a crime since the Koran condones and encourages it.



> I could undestand your claim to superiority if we had at some point overcome these problems in society, but we havent. The stats arent getting any better here than they are anywhere else, in fact its pretty shocking how bad it actully is.



Any woman who gets abused, exploited or is discriminated against can complain to the police, it's that simple in western countries. They can even go outside unveiled and walk to their local police department without fear of social repercussions.



> This attitude that we have all the solutions to the worlds problems when in reality we have a hard enough time trying solve our own is becoming hurdle.



I though I pre-empted such bullshit when I replied to you, but apparently you just read what you want to see. Again, *nobody* said that western society is perfect and has all the solutions, *nobody*. Being superior to something doesn't mean being the best, such simple concepts should be easy enough to grasp.

Was the ancient Greek democracy the best thing ever and had the answer to all of humanity's problems? No, but it sure as hell beat the despotism of other cultures of that time.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:


> Right, so are you saying domestic abuse, exploitation, discrimination and violence against women isnt a big problem in the west?
> 
> I could undestand your claim to superiority if we had at some point overcome these problems in society, but we havent. The stats arent getting any better here than they are anywhere else, in fact its pretty shocking how bad it actully is.
> 
> This attitude that we have all the solutions to the worlds problems when in reality we have a hard enough time trying solve our own is becoming hurdle.



BS, complete and total BS. 

If in one city you have roving mobs going around shooting people, you car bombs, rampant looting, huge destruction of property, etc

Then you turn around and say, 
well Western cities still have murders, theft, and harassment, so you can't say one is worse than the other. 

One is CLEARLY worse than the other, one is CLEARLY more of a problem than the other. 

Your attempt to blow off this off as similar is complete BS.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 18, 2011)

.


OutlawJohn said:


> Your argument is not that type of scenario. Its impossible to use superior and inferior in an objective way, against something that appears only in subjective forms. (...)


Let me phrase things another way.

If the Egyptian culture is sexist,
and if being sexist is being bad,
then the Egyptian culture is bad (at the very least least on this aspect).

If the Egyptian culture is sexist,
and if being sexist is being good,
then the Egyptian culture is good (at the very least least on this aspect).

Now, whether sexism is good or bad might be subjective all you like. Same goes for murder, paedophilia, torture, etc. I call them bad, and this gives me criteria for judging cultures. If you call them good, then we might disagree, but we would both be able to judge cultures nonetheless (though that would result in different rankings).

If you don't call them either good or bad, because you lack the ability to make a moral judgment, then you can't judge cultures at all. That, however, would technically mean that you are a sociopath.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 18, 2011)

N120 said:
			
		

> Not really,* Man must also obey his wife*. In islam men and women are given seperate pimary roles in society(I know that doesnt wit well with everyone here) and with that they also have conditions and rights set in place to ensure both can fulfill those basic roles as best they can and both are entitled seek/demand those rights from one another.


No they don't.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> You have to ask yourself, in what trait is the Quran saying that "men excel women". The obvious answer is in strength because the following verses read that men spend their property. This verse isn't looking at a general view on who's superior or inferior, only pointing out the obvious physical traits (even which you cannot deny) and according to these physical traits, assigns different duties to the sexes. Man in nature (in general) is superior to women in physical strength, this is the obvious trait that is identified and thus the man is seen as the protector in the family.
> 
> It is also true from a natural standpoint that within a family, there exists a leader (you can see it through out the animal kingdom as well). Since the man is above women in physical strength and earns, the Quran gives the man this role. Note, this is speaking of a general, aggregate case. For individual cases, it can be different.


Physical strength has absolutely no bearing in who should be a 'leader' in a family, unless of course beating your wife is an important aspect, of which it is in the Quran.

_Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.* As for those from whom ye fear rebellion*, admonish them and banish them to beds apart*, and beat them.* Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great._
-4:34

If you believe physical strength should be the natural determinant of who should be a leader, you'd apply that logic to every position of leadership.

So tell me could society run well if Government jobs are naturally give to bodybuilders? as well as every company?

ROFL.

Do you even think thing's through sometimes?


			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Anyway, this doesn't point to sexism in any way. Muslims accept that man and woman are equal but are not identical. Based on their nature, they are given different roles. The Quran does mention that men are not like women (or is it the vice versa?). Anyway, the Quran speaks from a practical standpoint.
> 
> As for the obedience part, since men are assigned as the leaders of a family, it naturally follows that other members stay obedient. However, this does not mean the woman does not have a voice and should be subject to injustice and physical violence. The perfect role model for Muslim men was Prophet Muhammad, and we know that Prophet Muhammad was a great lover of women and was extremely soft towards them.


Once you 'assign' a sex as the leader and another as the one who must obey, that is sexism.

I'd like to know exactly what can qualify sexism to you, as physical abuse (by the quran) on women and also saying they must obey the husband, seems to me the very definition of treating a sex unfairly and badly.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 18, 2011)

impersonal said:


> .
> 
> Let me phrase things another way.
> 
> ...



I think you might finally understand what I'm saying, and I agree with you here.

I agree that those things are bad; but unfortunately for the world, not everyone agrees that those things are bad. And since not everyone agrees that those things are bad, and since there is no way to measure morality on scale, there is no way to call something subjective superior, or inferior, to another.

I agree that somethings in Islam, and the Middle Eastern culture, are bad. But, I do not hold them to be inferior, meaning inherently less than, other cultures.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 18, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> I agree that somethings in Islam, and the Middle Eastern culture, are bad. But, I do not hold them to be inferior, meaning inherently less than, other cultures.


Yes you do, the moment you think something is bad, is the moment you believe it is inferior to a better alternative.

If you try to uphold to some silly idea of 'subjectivism' such that you 'cant measure morality', then you yourself shouldn't be saying 'its bad' since that, according to your logic, is arbitrarily subjective.

In other words, your committing the very thing you say we shouldn't.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 18, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Yes you do, the moment you think something is bad, is the moment you believe it is inferior to a better alternative.
> 
> If you try to uphold to some silly idea of 'subjectivism' such that you 'cant measure morality', then you yourself shouldn't be saying 'its bad' since that, according to your logic, is arbitrarily subjective.
> 
> In other words, your committing the very thing you say we shouldn't.



Ah, ah, and that's where you're wrong.

That would be true, if bad was a synonym for inferior. I can find something to be bad, but that doesn't mean that I find it inferior to anything else.

I fully understand that I myself, am subject to my own logic. I do believe that somethings are bad, and some things should be avoided. But, seeing as the universe doesn't hand us a piece of paper giving us measurements for bad and good, we cannot actually compare one moral standard to another and call it bad.

I understand that what I find to be bad, may be found to be good by someone else.

Which is what you and impersonal fail to understand. I'm not saying that you shouldn't weigh in on a culture based on what you believe. I'm saying that, since your perspective on life is shaped differently than others, when you look at the morals of a person or culture, you'll come to a different decision than other people.

What you are arguing, is that your way is always right. That sir, is wrong.


----------



## Soups (Feb 18, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Ah, ah, and that's where you're wrong.
> 
> That would be true, if bad was a synonym for inferior. I can find something to be bad, but that doesn't mean that I find it inferior to anything else.
> 
> ...



Cultural/morale relativism is fucking stupid and a weak argument. Everyone understands what you mean. But they just think its stupid. Just a way for people to justify wrong doings. And evidently you will now wheel out the old, you only perceive them as wrong doings because culturally you were brought up like that. But that's a load of shit.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 18, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Ah, ah, and that's where you're wrong.
> 
> That would be true, if bad was a synonym for inferior. I can find something to be bad, but that doesn't mean that I find it inferior to anything else.


When you think something is bad, you do think it is inferior to something else (what you believe is the alternative and is good).

This is basic.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> I fully understand that I myself, am subject to my own logic. I do believe that somethings are bad, and some things should be avoided. But, seeing as the universe doesn't hand us a piece of paper giving us measurements for bad and good, we cannot actually compare one moral standard to another and call it bad.


To call something bad is to inherently compare it, because something is only bad insofar as there is something better an alternative.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> I understand that what I find to be bad, may be found to be good by someone else.
> 
> Which is what you and impersonal fail to understand. I'm not saying that you shouldn't weigh in on a culture based on what you believe. I'm saying that, since your perspective on life is shaped differently than others, when you look at the morals of a person or culture, you'll come to a different decision than other people.
> 
> *What you are arguing, is that your way is always right. *That sir, is wrong.


Nope never said that, so nice strawman, no one can always be right.

It is a meaningless argument that 'we can have different perspectives based on our upbringing' because that has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.

That different perspectives exist, doesn't make them all equal or all valid.

The hypocrisy in your argument is that you explicitly believe in things being 'good and bad' but go on to say that we cannot judge cultures especially against others, when primarily that is believing in 'good and bad' things, and whether the culture has them or not.


----------



## WT (Feb 19, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Physical strength has absolutely no bearing in who should be a 'leader' in a family



In every society an organized unit always has a leader. A family is considered to be an organized unit within Islam, thus it is mandatory for a leader to exist. The Quran states that do decide upon who the leader is, first and foremost, they must be the breadwinners of the family. Secondly, they must be the stronger of the two. Men have been given this role by nature itself. Its in no way related to "beating". 




> , unless of course beating your wife is an important aspect, of which it is in the Quran.



"Beating" the wife isn't a direct order, its a very last resort, after talking (which has effects) and after seperating the beds (which shows a greater effect). If this doesn't work, you don't get out a whip and start beating them with that. The early jurists interpreted that as light symbolic striking which can leave no mark. Its interesting that even modern laws by their own criterion separate both of these and render the "wife beating" rules in Islam as light and harmless taps. 


Lets see what the Prophet says about beating (note, I am under the belief that our Prophet has better interpretation about the Quran than you do). 


> "Do not beat the female servants of Allah;" "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you;" and"[It is not a shame that] one of you beats his wife like [an unscrupulous person] beats a slave and maybe he sleeps with her at the end of the day."
> 
> Riyadh Al-Saliheen, op.cit,p.p. 137-140)





> ...How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?...
> 
> (Sahih Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).





> If you believe physical strength should be the natural determinant of who should be a leader, you'd apply that logic to every position of leadership.
> 
> So tell me could society run well if Government jobs are naturally give to bodybuilders? as well as every company?
> 
> ...





The more important question is, "Do you think thing's through?"

The rules are only applied to a select case, there are different rules within Islam when selecting the leader of a society (and not family). Besides I have mentioned above why men were selected leaders of the family: They were the breadwinners and are generally stronger. 



> Once you 'assign' a sex as the leader and another as the one who must obey, that is sexism.



Then I guess nature is sexist by default. Your arbitrary morality of course are far superior. Theoretically, what you say may be nice and all, however, when it comes to a practical situation, things change very very very quickly. 




> I'd like to know exactly what can qualify sexism to you, as physical abuse (by the quran) on women and also saying they must obey the husband, seems to me the very definition of treating a sex unfairly and badly.



Sexism to me is the unjust treatment of women/men because they are women/men. Now before you say anything on this, I would like to add that men and women are different and hence have different roles. If women are discriminated within their own roles, that is injustice to me.  

Example, 

A man has two children, one boy and one girl:

Your theory:

A man buys his son a toy car, and thus he must buy his daughter a toy car as well.

Islamic view:

A man buys his son a toy car, and thus he must buy his daughter a toy doll.

Sexism:

A man buys his son a toy car, but buys nothing for his daughter because he believes girls are inferior to boys.


-------

_Note, posters may have noticed that I am not responding to them. This is done because I am currently in the final part of my masters program and am in the process of applying to jobs. I have very little time and the last thing I want right now is to get into a debate with many people.

I may also take time responding to your posts. Sorry for this._


----------



## maj1n (Feb 19, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> In every society an organized unit always has a leader. A family is considered to be an organized unit within Islam, thus it is mandatory for a leader to exist. The Quran states that do decide upon who the leader is, first and foremost, they must be the breadwinners of the family. Secondly, they must be the stronger of the two. Men have been given this role by nature itself. Its in no way related to "beating".


Perhaps it is natural to be a leader, however the Quran mandates men to be the leader due to inherent superiority given by Allah.

Whether or not a 'leader' is required in an organisation, has no bearing on the sexist and patriarchal attitude of the Quran.

'Beating' wives is part of the verse.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> "Beating" the wife isn't a direct order, its a very last resort, after talking (which has effects) and after seperating the beds (which shows a greater effect). If this doesn't work, you don't get out a whip and start beating them with that. The early jurists interpreted that as light symbolic striking which can leave no mark. Its interesting that even modern laws by their own criterion separate both of these and render the "wife beating" rules in Islam as light and harmless taps.


A last resort to a husband merely fearing rebellious behaviour.

'last resort' doesn't make it better, what makes it wrong is that it is unjustified and grossly inhumane.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Lets see what the Prophet says about beating (note, I am under the belief that our Prophet has better interpretation about the Quran than you do).


Nothing you presented suddenly makes wife beating in the quran somehow better, saying 'dont beat your wife as severely as you would beat the shit out of a slave or a camel' doesn't make it any better.

I would be amused and horrified if a defense in  a court of law against a wife-beating husband is 'well take a look at this backwards tribal country stoning women, obviously what he did is ok'.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> The rules are only applied to a select case, there are different rules within Islam when selecting the leader of a society (and not family). Besides I have mentioned above why men were selected leaders of the family: They were the breadwinners and are generally stronger.


Indeed Allah according to Islam gave men a role and the wife must obey him, this is wrong.

It is wrong purely for the fact that in a scenario whereby a muslim woman runs her family better , she should be leader, or perhaps the husband and her act equally (which is the best option imo) but to do so would be considered a sin against God.

The ridiculousness is apparent.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Then I guess nature is sexist by default. Your arbitrary morality of course are far superior. Theoretically, what you say may be nice and all, however, when it comes to a practical situation, things change very very very quickly.


Practical situation? you might like to notice that under 'practical situations' the Islamic rulings are bad.

There is a reason why women in western countries enjoy a far greater quality of life then arab countries, especially fundamentalistic ones.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Sexism to me is the unjust treatment of women/men because they are women/men. Now before you say anything on this, I would like to add that men and women are different and hence have different roles. If women are discriminated within their own roles, that is injustice to me.
> [/I]


Rofl.

What your telling me is basically this.

'I am against sexism, but i believe women naturally should be in subservient roles against men because my religion told me so, this isn't sexism but is simply due to differences in sex'.

Basically, your attitude is like a white supremacist whom treats blacks inferior saying 'im not racist, its just that blacks are in fact naturally inferior to whites'.

Btw:

_Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, *"O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence.* Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." _
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301

In Islam, women are also seen as naturally less intelligent then men.


----------



## Punpun (Feb 19, 2011)

Well the last part is normal. You have to be less intelligent to adhere to a religion wich see you as inherently inferior to Men.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 19, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> The more important question is, "Do you think thing's through?"
> 
> The rules are only applied to a select case, there are different rules within Islam when selecting the leader of a society (and not family). Besides I have mentioned above why men were selected leaders of the family: They were the breadwinners and are generally stronger.



lol wut? Then intelligence has no say on who leads? *You are saying you don't have to be intelligent to be a leader if you follow the Quran*. You realize that, right? Wow. That's... gold. 

Just because a man is strong doesn't mean he's fit to lead. Otherwise every country would be controlled by a muscular hulk. Your argument is invalid.




> Sexism to me is the unjust treatment of women/men because they are women/men. Now before you say anything on this, I would like to add that men and women are different and hence have different roles.



Sexism, sexism, sexism.



> If women are discriminated within their own roles, that is injustice to me.
> 
> Example,
> 
> ...



No. You ASK what they like and based on that you give them a toy. If she tells you she wants a "boy toy" and you deny her that by Islamic view then, YES, you are sexist.

I liked Hot-wheels. I pleaded to be given the toy sword of Leono and I played to be a Ninja Turtle. I never missed a single episode of Captain Tsubasa and I played soccer with the kids on my block. Yes, I had dolls and stuffed animals, but what I truly loved where my action figures of Batman and Dinosaur toys. Once again, your argument is invalid.  



I already pity any daughters you may have.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Feb 19, 2011)

I didn't create this thread as an attack on Islam or Muslims. This isn't about Islam or Muslims, it's about some a-holes who vicimized an innocent person. Hell it can't be proven if they were a part of celebrators or p*ssed off Mubarak loyalists. Stop prejudicing an entire group of people based on the actions of a few - that is being a bigot.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 19, 2011)

Don't worry DiV. I know that was Mob Mentally. It doesn't matter if it was a "celebration" or angry "loyalists", that doesn't have to do with anything. Once Mob Mentally takes hold, all morals are thrown out of the window. This is the reason why I avoid protests and big masses of people like the pest. It only requires one stupid fuck and then hell breaks loose. 

The debate that's going on is more on the lines "woman must obey their men because God said so" brought to you by White Tiger, Pimp of Pims and N120, among others. Sorry if that derailed the topic at hand.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Feb 19, 2011)

CBS made a mistake to send her there. Now they have to learn from their mistake. I hope physical and mental recovery for this women.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 19, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> I understand that what I find to be bad, may be found to be good by someone else.
> 
> Which is what you and impersonal fail to understand. I'm not saying that you shouldn't weigh in on a culture based on what you believe. I'm saying that, since your perspective on life is shaped differently than others, when you look at the morals of a person or culture, you'll come to a different decision than other people.
> 
> What you are arguing, is that your way is always right. That sir, is wrong.


We understand perfectly what you're talking about. You're just about the 100,000th proponent of moral relativism to pop out on the internet with the same old arguments.

Take the statement: _"Not murdering innocents is better than murdering innocents"_.

According to you, I cannot say that. I should instead say: _"I *personally find* that not murdering innocents is better than murdering innocents"_. 

What has this added to the discussion? It has made my point unclear. It now seems that I personally won't murder innocents for fun, but that I don't mind other people doing it (because hey, to each his thing, right?). Of course this is false. Thus your intervention has corrupted the initial point, without adding anything to the discussion.

This is exactly what you're doing in this thread. You say that judging someone else is impossible "objectively". That may be true. Try telling that to a judge who is deciding on how to treat your repeated abuse of the laws ("outlaw"). He'll answer: "who gives a damn. You're still going to prison".

Similarly, who gives a damn that _"sexism"_ is not _"objectively bad"_. It does not affect in the slightest the fact that sexism _should be despised_.


PS: it's funny that people like you never intervene to dispute justice decisions, as the arguments would work in _exactly_ the same way. Instead, they only intervene to try and justify the stoning of raped girls in Saudi Arabia. When someone says "this p*d*p**** is a bad person", you keep your mouth shut, but when someone says "the culture of stoning raped girls is bad", that's when you intervene.


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 19, 2011)

its amazing how she was saved by women, then soldiers...


----------



## Juno (Feb 19, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> CBS made a mistake to send her there. Now they have to learn from their mistake. I hope physical and mental recovery for this women.



They didn't make a mistake. War correspondents like Logan have been kidnapped, assaulted, killed, lost, threatened, imprisoned, and yes, sexually assaulted. It's a risky occupation, and everyone in that business understands that, including the women.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 19, 2011)

impersonal said:


> We understand perfectly what you're talking about. You're just about the 100,000th proponent of moral relativism to pop out on the internet with the same old arguments.
> 
> Take the statement: _"Not murdering innocents is better than murdering innocents"_.
> 
> According to you, I cannot say that. I should instead say: _"I *personally find* that not murdering innocents is better than murdering innocents"_.



Now, you're putting words in my mouth. I specifically stated that you have the right to believe in whatever you want. I was just making the point, that you can't call a culture superior to another, and have any type of scientific backing behind it.

But, instead of reacting aggressively to your attempt to twist my words, I'll just this conversation here.

Good debating with you.



maj1n said:


> When you think something is bad, you do think it is inferior to something else (what you believe is the alternative and is good).
> 
> This is basic.
> 
> ...



I've given you a simple concept, and you fail to understand, or are trolling me.

The one and only thing that I've argued is that : *one cannot call another culture inferior to another, at least not with any type of scientific backing. The only thing they can go by is their personal experience and morals, which is subjective.*

I, like any other human being, am bound by the same. I have my personal beliefs which I judge cultures and decisions by, but I understand that my belief, and how I place everything is not universal law, it's just the law inside my head.

And I don't know how time's I've reiterated, I don't believe that its impossible to judge cultures, and if I didn't make that clear enough, I apologize. But, its impossible to call a culture morality  inferior to another, and have it be a fact, because morals are subjective.

But, this is getting none of us anywhere. You're aren't convincing me, and I'm not convincing you, and worst of all, it's become more tedious than fun.

Good debating to ya.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 19, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> The one and only thing that I've argued is that : *one cannot call another culture inferior to another, at least not with any type of scientific backing. The only thing they can go by is their personal experience and morals, which is subjective.*



ok, lets try this. 

Let's say you have a culture where no one has children, and they don't allow any immigrants into the culture. 

Are you saying there are no subjective ways of identifying this culture as inferior?

For instance, it will not survive a single generation.
Do you trully not see this as objective criteria for which you can declare this culture inferior?


----------



## maj1n (Feb 19, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> I've given you a simple concept, and you fail to understand, or are trolling me.
> 
> The one and only thing that I've argued is that : *one cannot call another culture inferior to another, at least not with any type of scientific backing. The only thing they can go by is their personal experience and morals, which is subjective.*
> 
> ...


If you think its wrong to consider cultures inferior or superior to another, you also cannot possibly judge beliefs ideas or values.

Because in doing so, you are inherently considering what is wrong worse then what is right.

Every single argument you try to make, applies to your own behavior of judging immoral behavior.

Its plain to see the illogic in your stance.

If a husband beat the shit out of his wife physically, and i were to ask you 'is there a better way to treat the woman'

Your position would say 'well we can't say treating a woman equally is any better then beating the shit out of them because we cannot prove this objectively through science'.

But i bet you yourself can't bring yourself to say that, which just goes to show your sheer illogic.


----------



## Petenshi (Feb 19, 2011)

maj1n said:


> If you think its wrong to consider cultures inferior or superior to another, you also cannot possibly judge beliefs ideas or values.
> 
> Because in doing so, you are inherently considering what is wrong worse then what is right.
> 
> ...



I can say it. I may not agree now with people beating on women, but the world didn't crumble for the thousands of years that was 'okay'.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 19, 2011)

Petenshi said:


> I can say it. I may not agree now with people beating on women, but the world didn't crumble for the thousands of years that was 'okay'.


If you don't agree with people beating women, you believe there is a better alternative to how to treat them.

Nice to see your illogic.

I fail to see 'the world not crumbling' as any point in anything, people find faster ways to get to work, if i asked if there is a better faster way to get to work, is an actually faster way to get to work, not actually better because 'the world did not end'.

Really what argument is this?

The fact you had to preface your statement with 'i myself dont agree with it' goes to show your illogical stance, you try and support OutlawJohn, whos logic is 'we cannot say something is better then another', but when i bring up an example such as husbands beating the shit out of the wife, you immediately backpedal because deep down you know OutlawJohns stance is just stupid.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 19, 2011)

dummy plug said:


> its amazing how she was saved by women, then soldiers...



That's 'cause only women care for women over there.


----------



## Havoc (Feb 19, 2011)

If only Ghost Rider were real.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 19, 2011)

Does Ghost Rider kill rapists?


----------



## Havoc (Feb 19, 2011)

Yes, right after he burns their souls and makes them experience all the pain they have ever caused others.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 19, 2011)

maj1n said:


> If you think its wrong to consider cultures inferior or superior to another, you also cannot possibly judge beliefs ideas or values.
> 
> Because in doing so, you are inherently considering what is wrong worse then what is right.
> 
> ...



Except, we aren't talking about individual scenarios.

I can say that there is a better way to treat woman, because that is a personal belief of mine.

But, I ask you, does that mean that the culture, who treat woman the way I would like them to be treated, is inherently superior in all aspects to the culture that treats woman badly? No, it doesn't. Because the people who are in the culture that treat woman badly, don't find it to be immoral.

My stance is far from illogical, it comes from understanding the point of view of other human beings. Its pretty simple to understand, and my respect is dwindling for you as twist my words around, and completely run around what I'm talking about.

My stance is this: there is no way to objectively say one culture is 'superior' to another, because stances across the entire world will vary. Even though I believe one thing, what I believe is not the law of the universe, and since there is no possible way to come to consensus throughout the world, there is no possible way for me to be completely right. 

Even though I, personally, find the idea of beating woman to be bad, I cannot say so for others. Even I can I say I believe that it's better for woman to be treated right, I cannot say so for those in the Middle East.

Obviously, since there is no moral standard in the universe for us to follow and compare with, I am not right. My view may be preferred, but its only morally correct on the side of the people who hold the same moral values as I.

Its not a matter of:

Hitting woman is bad, and anyone who believes so is bad.

Its a matter of: Even though I believe that hitting woman is bad, not everyone in the world agrees with, and since there is no scientific way from me to say that those people who don't agree with me are wrong, all I can do is stick to my opinion.

Simple concept, either you refuse to understand, or refuse to accept.

And if we're to continue, stop insulting me. It's highly unappreciated.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 19, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Its *not* a matter of:
> 
> Hitting woman is bad, and anyone who believes so is bad.
> 
> ...


.....

It* is* the matter of "hitting women is bad and everyone who believes so is bad". It doesn't matter if those people who don't see it as bad don't agree with the sane people who see treating women as garbage, as bad. When you come to the conclusion that hitting someone (especially for a gender or some other stupid friggin' reason) _isn't_ bad, _you_ are bad. And if that's the culture that feels _that_ way, then it _is inferior_ as well _as bad_.

A culture that treats everyone equal and nicely is superior to those that don't.

And Maj1n isn't insulting you. Or at least I didn't see any insults in that last quote....


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 19, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> .....
> 
> It* is* the matter of "hitting women is bad and everyone who believes so is bad". It doesn't matter if those people who don't see it as bad don't agree with the sane people who see treating women as garbage, as bad. When you come to the conclusion that hitting someone (especially for a gender or some other stupid friggin' reason) _isn't_ bad, _you_ are bad. And if that's the culture that feels _that_ way, then it _is inferior_ as well _as bad_.
> 
> ...



And this is what it comes down to.

We've got a disagreement. At this point, I don't think anyone misunderstands what I'm saying, but rather, disagrees. And that, I'm fine with.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 19, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> And this is what it comes down to.
> 
> We've got a disagreement. At this point, I don't think anyone misunderstands what I'm saying, but rather, disagrees. And that, I'm fine with.



If you feel like a culture that treats people like crap isn't bad because of its your opinion, then something is wrong. A culture or people who treat different people (women for example) like crap are in fact, bad and inferior to those who don't, no matter someone's opinion of it _not_ being bad/inferior. And if they feel like its not wrong in any shape or form, they share what the culture shares in terms of being bad/inferior.

Its still bad even with the people over there (Egypt ect) _not _thinking its bad. Its still inferior even if the people over there (Egypt ect) don't think its inferior.

Of course we'll disagree. When a culture itself or when a person beats up on a certain gender or person, they are bad. It doesn't come down to your opinion, although you could have one about the situation, it doesn't change the fact that if the culture practices this mistreatment, they are bad and inferior to those who don't practice it. >.<


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Feb 20, 2011)

Havoc said:


> If only Ghost Rider were real.



The Spectre is much better. He's even killed an rapist before.

Hell, it'd be nice to have the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and the Spectre around earth.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 20, 2011)

Spartan1337 said:


> The Spectre is much better. He's even killed an rapist before.
> 
> Hell, it'd be nice to have the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and the Spectre around earth.



The Punisher _would_ better suit this


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 20, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> .....
> 
> It* is* the matter of "hitting women is bad and everyone who believes so is bad". It doesn't matter if those people who don't see it as bad don't agree with the sane people who see treating women as garbage, as bad. When you come to the conclusion that hitting someone (especially for a gender or some other stupid friggin' reason) _isn't_ bad, _you_ are bad. And if that's the culture that feels _that_ way, then it _is inferior_ as well _as bad_.
> 
> ...





Terra Branford said:


> If you feel like a culture that treats people like crap isn't bad because of its your opinion, then something is wrong. A culture or people who treat different people (women for example) like crap are in fact, bad and inferior to those who don't, no matter someone's opinion of it _not_ being bad/inferior. And if they feel like its not wrong in any shape or form, they share what the culture shares in terms of being bad/inferior.
> 
> Its still bad even with the people over there (Egypt ect) _not _thinking its bad. Its still inferior even if the people over there (Egypt ect) don't think its inferior.
> 
> Of course we'll disagree. When a culture itself or when a person beats up on a certain gender or person, they are bad. It doesn't come down to your opinion, although you could have one about the situation, it doesn't change the fact that if the culture practices this mistreatment, they are bad and inferior to those who don't practice it. >.<



My Point: Looking it at from a completely apathetic point of view, no culture is inferior. Why? Because there is no measurement for morality. From an apathetic point of view, its impossible to say any culture is superior to another, because the universe doesn't provide any observable phenomena by which for us to measure morals and culture.

But, seeing as its impossible to lack at from the apathetic point of view, then we have to look at their morals, through our morals. Using our morals, obviously, their sense of morality is considered bad, not necessarily inferior, but bad. But, we only believe them to be bad because we've been raised to be so. If per example, we were raised in their culture, we would not find their actions to be bad.

Now, if it was possible to look at this from a completely apathetic point of view, without any motion, or sense of humanity, and prove without a shadow of a doubt, someone who is violent towards others, is inferior, to someone who is not, then we could rightly say that:

Culture A is superior to culture B, just as the Eiffel Tower is superior to Big Ben in height.

Since its impossible to do so, we can only look at these situations through our own bias, and thus cannot rightfully, call Culture A, inferior, or superior to Culture B.


----------



## Havoc (Feb 20, 2011)

Spartan1337 said:


> The Spectre is much better. He's even killed an rapist before.
> 
> Hell, it'd be nice to have the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and the Spectre around earth.


GR is Marvel's spirit of vengeance.

Same thing really.

As long as they're tortured idc.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 20, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> My Point: Looking it at from a completely apathetic point of view, no culture is inferior. Why? Because there is no measurement for morality. From an apathetic point of view, its impossible to say any culture is superior to another, because the universe doesn't provide any observable phenomena by which for us to measure morals and culture.


I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. It is entirely possible to determine one culture inferior to another.

It is also possible to know morals and what's right and wrong. Examples?
Beating on women is bad and inferior to those who don't.



OutlawJohn said:


> But, seeing as its impossible to lack at from the apathetic point of view, then we have to look at their morals, through our morals. Using our morals, obviously, their sense of morality is considered bad, not necessarily inferior, but bad. But, we only believe them to be bad because we've been raised to be so. If per example, we were raised in their culture, we would not find their actions to be bad.



Again, you are incorrect. When your list of morals sees abuse, rape or anything like that as okay, you have no morals. You are bad and you are inferior to a culture that looks up to what is moral, right and wrong.

When a culture sees no problem with abuse or mistreatment to certain people, races or a gender, then they are inferior. Simple as that.

Do not assume what *I'd* feel. You might feel like what is being done isn't inferior (for some weird reason), it does not mean others would as well.

Even if I was raised in one of the abusive, mistreating cultures of the world where people are abused and mistreated for gender, race, religion or anything else, I would still see it as bad and inferior to those cultures that don't do it and would still see it as immoral.


OutlawJohn said:


> Now, if it was possible to look at this from a completely apathetic point of view, without any motion, or sense of humanity, and prove without a shadow of a doubt, someone who is violent towards others, is inferior, to someone who is not, then we could rightly say that:
> 
> Culture A is superior to culture B, just as the Eiffel Tower is superior to Big Ben in height.
> 
> Since its impossible to do so, we can only look at these situations through our own bias, and thus cannot rightfully, call Culture A, inferior, or superior to Culture B.


Inferiority can exist between cultures. Your lack of understandings doesn't mean its not possible. A culture that sees the abuse of any kind to anyone, is inferior and bad. Regardless of what you say.

So I suppose, going by what you've been saying, if a culture sees having sex with 6yrs as okay and not immoral (like some cultures about beating/raping women), does your "opinion" come back into play to say "who is to judge what's right and what's wrong?" or "Who is to judge it inferior?" or whatever else you might come up with?


It doesn't matter what culture you grow up it. That doesn't change what IS right and bad and what IS immoral and moral. Just because you grow up thinking its not bad, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 20, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> And if we're to continue, stop insulting me. It's highly unappreciated.



There is no objective scientific standard that says that insulting other people is wrong so why do you feel bad about it? Or why should one care since that is just your completely subjective opinion that insulting people is bad. Why ask of people to do what *you* want based on your subjective criteria/opinion?

Of course this is despite the fact that nobody is insulting you. Which is pretty basic but I am trying to make a point here. Suppose they were for the sake of the conversation. I just want you to explain to me what gives you a right to complain about people insulting you. Is it not nice?  Is it rude? Are there such scientific objective standards of behavior and morality? Based on what have you reached the conclusion that insulting people is undesirable? I assume you did not use a ruler that one uses to count the height of objects but used a different method.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 20, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> And if we're to continue, stop insulting me. It's highly unappreciated.



Wait, you mean you don't like the way they are referring to you? Like... me and other women feel about people defending the mistreatment of females!? GASP AND AWE! Yes, sweetheart, that's the part you need to feel if something is "bad". What you are failing to remember is something called *EMPATHY*. Empathy makes us the successful social creatures we are because we have learned to take others in consideration. Let's see, for example, the following questions and the answers.

Would you like to still be target of "insults"? No. You have made that clear. 
Would you like to be hit with a stick because you disagree with the rest in this thread? I'm going to go ahead and say No (unless you are into that kind of thing).
Do you think other people WANT to be treated like that? NO. 

No one wants that. Ergo, downgrading and hitting people is bad no matter the culture. */debate over*

If you say YES to the last question then, pal, you have bigger problems and should get professional help ASAP. 

Thank you and good night.

P.S. I also want Ghost Rider to be real, but I would settle for Punisher. :33


----------



## Petenshi (Feb 20, 2011)

maj1n said:


> If you don't agree with people beating women, you believe there is a better alternative to how to treat them.
> 
> Nice to see your illogic.
> 
> ...



Your moral stance is based of emotion, not logic. Beating women doesn't make the world better or worse. It honestly has no affect on the infrastructure on our cities, or the growth our nation as far as the data shows. At least in America, things seemed to work pretty well with women being mistreated. Your analogy precisely shows my point of the relativeness of such an argument. A lot of people would say if you you have great infrastructure and growth your nation is superior. Many others might say a strong religious background is important to a superior society. The crusades are an example of that. The point is that you can't say something is better than another in such a concrete manner because you all are coming from different standpoints and comparing different things. For example, if we looked at American and based its greatness purely on efficiency then we would look horrible. However, looking at it from a Capitalistic with socialist policies perspectives we are doing great! No, it isn't stupid. Its completely 100% correct. If you want to spout imperialism, do it somewhere else. 

Its one thing to say, I believe A is better than B. Its quite another, and may I say a ridiculous thing, to say to say you know A is better than B or to act like you know. If you actually read his post, all he said was it is subjective. He didn't say that all societies were equal, or that there isn't a chance one is inferior to another.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 20, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Except, we aren't talking about individual scenarios.
> *
> I can say that there is a better way to treat woman,* because that is a personal belief of mine.
> 
> ...


If you honestly believed this, you would advocate that no criminal be punished by courts of law, because your stance is that we cannot enforce a moral point of view on others.

Which is a ridiculous stance to take, as that would lead to a chaotic and terrible society.

Saying your view is illogical is not insulting, as the very act of disagreeing with someone is to consider their point of view wrong.

So, if you believe i am insulting you, you should believe you are also insulting me, nice try.

The bolded is to show your illogic, if you think morality is subjective and one is not better or worse then another, it is sheer illogic to have a personal belief that something is better or worse then another.

The fact your arguing against me or anyone in this thread, means you are advocating your point of view as better then mine (you are right i am wrong), the silliness if your perspective is apparent in the illogic of your stance.


			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Your moral stance is based of emotion, not logic. *Beating women doesn't make the world better or worse. It honestly has no affect on the infrastructure on our cities, or the growth our nation as far as the data shows*. At least in America, things seemed to work pretty well with women being mistreated. Your analogy precisely shows my point of the relativeness of such an argument. A lot of people would say if you you have great infrastructure and growth your nation is superior. Many others might say a strong religious background is important to a superior society. The crusades are an example of that. The point is that you can't say something is better than another in such a concrete manner because you all are coming from different standpoints and comparing different things. For example, if we looked at American and based its greatness purely on efficiency then we would look horrible. However, looking at it from a Capitalistic with socialist policies perspectives we are doing great! No, it isn't stupid. Its completely 100% correct. If you want to spout imperialism, do it somewhere else.
> 
> Its one thing to say, I believe A is better than B. Its quite another, and may I say a ridiculous thing, to say to say you know A is better than B or to act like you know. If you actually read his post, all he said was it is subjective. He didn't say that all societies were equal, or that there isn't a chance one is inferior to another.


Petenshi, are you serious?

Are you seriously saying that domestic violence has no bearing on a society or country? seriously?

I thought it would be common damn knowledge that physical abuse on the other half of the human sex would have very bad affects on human society, because human society is...made..up...of....humans.

I don't know if your just trolling or are serious, so i took the liberty of getting some evidence.
_
In a study of 777 *homeless parents *(the majority of whom were mothers) in ten
U.S. cities,* 22% said they had left their last place of residence because of
domestic violence.* (Homes for the Homeless, 1998). In addition, 46% of cities
surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors identified domestic violence as a
primary cause of homelessness. (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998)1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES AT (703) 792-6065.
�� Shelter providers in Virginia report that* 35% of their clients are homeless
because of family violence* (Virginia Coalition for the Homeless, 1995) This
same survey found that more than 2,000 women seeking shelter from domestic
violence facilities were turned away._
*
Children who witness violence at home display emotional and behavioral
disturbances as diverse as withdrawal, low self-esteem, nightmares, self-blame
and aggression against peers, family members and propert*y.4
�� During 1992, approximately* 28% of female homicide victims (1,414) were
known to have been killed by their husbands, *former husbands or boyfriends.
In contrast, just over 3% of male homicide victims (637) were known to have
been killed by their wives, former wives or girlfriends.5

In a 1994 *survey of senior executives of Fortune 100 companies,* significant
numbers of respondents said* domestic violence has a harmful effect on their
company’s productivity (49%) and attendance (47%), and increases insurance
and medical costs (44%). Eighty percent of respondents said that domestic
violence affects employees from all walks of life*.7
�� According to a 1996 National Institute of Justice study,* domestic crime against
adults accounts for almost 15 percent of total crime costs--$67 billion per year.*

*

Costs of Domestic Violence*_
*
Domestic violence directly affects the victims, their children, their families and friends, employers, co-workers, and has repercussions for the quality of life in a local community. There can be far-reaching financial, social, health and psychological consequences. The impact of violence can also have indirect costs, including the costs to the community of bringing perpetrators to justice or the costs of medical treatment for injured victims.*
Economic Costs

While the human impact of domestic violence is difficult to calculate, in a report published in 2000, *Impacts and Costs of Domestic Violence on the Australian Business/Corporate Sector, staff absenteeism and replacement costs alone were estimated to cost employers over $30 million per annum while the total cost (including direct and indirect costs) to the corporate/business sector was estimated to be around $1 billion per annum.*

In a *another study, Economic Costs of Domestic Violence, 2002, *Lesley Laing and Natasha Bobic examined the relevant literature, defined the terminology and compare the estimated costs of domestic violence both nationally and internationally. The value of an economic perspective, as this report demonstrates, is that it provides a powerful angle from which to view the consequences of domestic violence and to argue for social policies to improve services and support victims.

In 2004, Access Economics, commissioned by the Office for the Status of Women, released The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy. This key report estimated that the* total annual cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy in 2002–03 was $8.1 billion. The largest contributor was pain, suffering and premature mortality at $3.5 billion. The remaining costs totalled $4.6 billion.* The largest part was consumption costs, of which the largest component was lost household economies of scale. The next largest categories were production and administration at $484 million and $480 million respectively.
Social and Health Costs

In Economic Costs of Domestic Violence, 2002, Lesley Laing and Natasha Bobic discuss some of the indirect social and health consequences of domestic violence. These include:
*
Social and psychological consequences described for victims include anxiety, depression and other emotional distress, physical stress symptoms, suicide attempts, alcohol and drug abuse, sleep disturbances, reduced coping and problem solving skills, loss of self esteem and confidence, social isolation, fear of starting new relationships, living in fear, and other major impacts on quality of life. Immediate impacts often described for children of victims include emotional and behavioural problems, lost school time and poor school performance, adjustment problems, stress, reduced social competence, bullying and excessive cruelty to animals, running away from home, and relationship problems.*

Other consequences listed in this report:

    *
*69 per cent of the group of Northern Territory domestic violence victims interviewed reported being physically and emotionally exhausted, stressed and depressed to the point of having to stop work for periods ranging from three months to two years and seven per cent were too ill or too exhausted to work permanently.*
    *
      all of the women in the group of Tasmanian domestic violence victims interviewed who had worked during the violent relationship noted they were unable to separate the trauma of their personal life from their work life, resulting in either lost work days or poor performance.
    *
      all of the group of Northern Territory domestic violence victims interviewed who had worked at some time during the* violent relationship reported the high anxiety and feelings of worthlessness greatly affected the quality of their work performance; 97 per cent could not concentrate or performed poorly at work and 93 per cent made more errors at work; seven per cent lost a job because of poor performance due to the violence.*
    *
      in 40 per cent of cases, friends and family of the group of Northern Territory domestic violence victims took time off work to accompany the women to court, to hospital, or to mind her children.
    *
      four women had in excess of 100 sick days as a result of direct violence or other injuries; one had a year of sick leave due to a back injury caused by her partner; another missed 288 days (over a 16 year period) due to stress caused by the relationship.

In an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, Domestic Violence in Australia: Definition, Prevalence and Nature of Presentation in Clinical Practice, 2000, the authors found domestic violence to be a major public health problem, common in women attending clinical practice.

The 2004 Access Economics report, The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy, also includes data on the health and social consequences and costs of domestic violence._
-http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/Dom_violence.htm


I am fucking dissapointed, seriously, i know you guys are on the backfoot when advocating moral relativism because it is shown immediately that your advocacy of beating women to be wrong, shows your guilty of the very thing you argue against.

But the absurdity to even suggest that beating women, domestic abuse, and broadly, gender discrimination, is so inconsequential to society that it is not better off in treating women better, is just pathetic.

I surely hope your argument merely stems from an unfortunate need to defend your wrongful initial perspective, and not a true belief you hold.


----------



## Petenshi (Feb 20, 2011)

Maj1n, your elitist attitude is absolutely unbearable. I concede for the mere fact that I cannot argue with such a boorish white knight who thinks he knows what is best for everyone. At least after coming home from a 12 hour shift at 3am.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:


> Your moral stance is based of emotion, not logic. Beating women doesn't make the world better or worse. It honestly has no affect on the infrastructure on our cities, or the growth our nation as far as the data shows.



What data is that, Mr. Misogynist wizard ?


----------



## Petenshi (Feb 20, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> What data is that, Mr. Misogynist wizard ?



It was a statement made to aggregate my point, that a societies worth depends on what you view as worthy. I may not view children having a harder life, or women being depressed as a measure of how well my society is doing. If I view GDP as worth, then women being beaten has very little effect on that.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:


> It was a statement made to aggregate my point, that a societies worth depends on what you view as worthy. I may not view children having a harder life, or women being depressed as a measure of how well my society is doing. *If I view GDP as worth, then women being beaten has very little effect on that*.



Prove it, prove that societal conflicts like that have no bearing on the workforce of a populace.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:


> Beating women doesn't make the world better or worse. It honestly has no affect on the infrastructure on our cities, or the growth our nation as far as the data shows.


It doesn't until its your mom, sister, wife or friend...I don't see how you can sit here and act as if how a society treats its women isn't important. It's pretty damn important when you think about the fact that they're the majority of the people on the planet by a small margin and they're a historically mistreated group. 

Women in the US still face problems, its just not legal to wail on them or rape them. A society where anyone's mother or sister can be guilty of something that shouldn't even be illegal (like sleeping around) and get killed over it isn't just.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:


> Maj1n, your elitist attitude is absolutely unbearable. I concede for the mere fact that I cannot argue with such a boorish white knight who thinks he knows what is best for everyone. At least after coming home from a 12 hour shift at 3am.



There is no elitism at display here whatsoever. Just some decency and morals that are far more common than you might think.  I mean how don't you realize how controversial and indecent and backwards your position is? And logically indefensible as well of course. (That is why its so backwards, because we all know this).



> Beating women doesn't make the world better or worse. It honestly has no affect on the infrastructure on our cities, or the growth our nation as far as the data shows.



So according to you, how good the world is, is supposedly equal to the infrastructure of our cities but not the welfare/well being of our people. I wonder what other things you see not affecting the world for better or worse other than the beating of women. When you put the welfare of human beings in such a low priority, I wonder what other things that are misanthropic you see not affecting the world in a negative fashion or in a positive. (like its completely unimportant). 

Note that, that it has no effect on the infrastructure on our cities or the growth of our nation(which nation? All of them or just the US?) is an unfounded conclusion. I could elaborate also on that, but for the sake of keeping it short, I won't.


----------



## Petenshi (Feb 20, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Prove it, prove that societal conflicts like that have no bearing on the workforce of a populace.



Note: This is to prove a point, and has nothing to do with my thoughts on women. Let me make that clear. 

Han Dynasty. Huge Empire and economy. I would say forcing women to obey their male counterparts is mistreatment. That didn't seem to slow their empire down.



> Women were expected to obey the will of their father, then their husband, and then their adult son in old age. However, it is known from contemporary sources that there were many deviations to this rule, especially in regard to mothers over their sons, and empresses who ordered around and openly humiliated their fathers and brothers.[114] Women were exempt from the annual corv?e labor duties, but often engaged in a range of income-earning occupations aside from their domestic chores of cooking and cleaning.



Ancient Athens, also a sizeable empire



> Compared to the women of Sparta, the status of an Athenian woman in Greek society was minimal. By comparison to present day standards, Athenian women were only a small step above slaves by the 5th century BC.



All you have to do is look at history. From the dawn of time women have been mistreated, and economies have still grown very easily. Even today we still mistreat women in America, perhaps not as much as the Middle East, but it is still very prevalent. 



The statistics there are kind of old, but it still shows that during the time of Americas still upward path into power our female citizens were still the victim of regular violence.

Maj1n may point out that the fact that the society wasn't doing badly, doesn't mean it couldn't be better. I have at least shown that societies can do well while still treating women like dirt. Well, does he have any proof for that? Because as far as I know, there are very very few societies if any at all which treated women as complete equals. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It doesn't until its your mom, sister, wife or friend...I don't see how you can sit here and act as if how a society treats its women isn't important. It's pretty damn important when you think about the fact that they're the majority of the people on the planet by a small margin and they're a historically mistreated group.
> 
> Women in the US still face problems, its just not legal to wail on them or rape them. A society where anyone's mother or sister can be guilty of something that shouldn't even be illegal (like sleeping around) and get killed over it isn't just.



Yes, I know. It was merely for a point. I don't think women should be beaten. Maj1n challenged me to come up with a reason of how a society that beats women is better than one that does not. I tried to show that to point out how subjectiveness allows for ridiculous points like the one I am making right now. 



Narutofann12 said:


> There is no elitism at display here whatsoever. Just some decency and morals that are far more common than you might think.  I mean how don't you realize how controversial and indecent and backwards your position is? And logically indefensible as well of course. (That is why its so backwards, because we all know this).



Once again, I never said I supported people beating women.



> So according to you, how good the world is, is supposedly equal to the infrastructure of our cities but not the welfare/well being of our people. I wonder what other things you see not affecting the world for better or worse other than the beating of women. When you put the welfare of human beings in such a low priority, I wonder what other things that are misanthropic you see not affecting the world in a negative fashion or in a positive. (like its completely unimportant).



No. But some people may see it that way. Thus subjectiveness.



> Note that, that it has no effect on the infrastructure on our cities or the growth of our nation(which nation? All of them or just the US?) is an unfounded conclusion. I could elaborate also on that, but for the sake of keeping it short, I won't.



I would welcome you to do that, but it would be kind of irrelevant as that wasn't the point I was making. The feature I was keying in on, was that the worth of society is not a static unchanging law that was here before we were. We each have our own. Just like I think the world would be a better place with more socialism, but CTK may not. CTK's world may be superior to mine, but it may not be. And to spout that violence towards women is inherently wrong and is an immutable fact, like I garnered from Maj1n is ridiculous. Its a subjective position, no matter how much a majority of people would like to think it isn't. You can argue the point till the cows come home, it won't change that it is an opinion.

Ironically, this is also all an opinion not an immutable fact. For the record.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:


> Note: This is to prove a point, and has nothing to do with my thoughts on women. Let me make that clear.
> 
> Han Dynasty. Huge Empire and economy. I would say forcing women to obey their male counterparts is mistreatment. That didn't seem to slow their empire down.
> 
> ...


Conveniently you ignored my post that has a multitude of results of studies and survey's showing the negative impact of domestiv violence both economically and socially.

Showing me societies can expand economically through war or other means, has *absolutely no bearing* on any argument that domestic violence on women and its effect on society.

The fact you post these examples but then at the end backpedal and admit they have no relevance tot he actual argument is amusing.

Yes there is proof that societies that treat women better, in terms of gender inequality, have an improved workforce for one.


			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Yes, I know. It was merely for a point. I don't think women should be beaten. Maj1n challenged me to come up with a reason of how a society that beats women is better than one that does not. I tried to show that to point out how subjectiveness allows for ridiculous points like the one I am making right now.
> 
> Once again, I never said I supported people beating women.
> 
> No. But some people may see it that way. Thus subjectiveness.


If you don't support beating women, then treating them well to you is a better alternative then beating them.

Trying this type of argument 'everything is subjective hence we cannot put a value on things or say one is better then the other' then personally have a stance 'not beating women for me is a better alternative then beating them'.

Smacks of pure illogic, as you are arguing against yourself.

It is very clear you can't resolve your own position, because you attempt to save face and say 'i dont support beating women' but then turn around and accuse those of the same stance and say 'but you cant say its actually wrong or there isn't a better alternative because everything is subjective'.

Your arguing, completely, against yourself.

The fact of the matter is, you and OutlawJohn have some hangup in proclaiming one culture is better then another, because you feel this is some inherent evil attitude which results in genocide (which OutlawJohn actually explicitly states).

Then when its pointed out to you that considering one culture to be morally superior/inferior to another is no different then assigning moral value judgements on basic moral beliefs (like whether to beat women).

Suddenly you can't resolve this dilemma, you try and support your initial position, which leads down to the path that you must also advocate domestic violence isn't bad because you cant assign moral judgement on this based on your initial argument, but then you actually state you believe domestic violence is bad.

You just keep arguing against yourself.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 20, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> I was just making the point, that you can't call a culture superior to another, and have any type of scientific backing behind it.


Ah, now it's "scientific". It wasn't "scientific" before. Well, sure, there is no scientific backing of morality.


OutlawJohn said:


> The one and only thing that I've argued is that : *one cannot call another culture inferior to another, at least not with any type of scientific backing. The only thing they can go by is their personal experience and morals, which is subjective.*


Now, that is not what you have argued. Until now, you had made no mention of science; you only introduced it here as a way to back off of your former claims. But the main problem, in any case, is that you made a completely irrelevant assertion in an attempt to derail the discussion off of important moral issues. Let me explain.

Of course you can make a _philosophical_ point that, indeed, morals are not scientifically backed.

I could respond with a philosophical point that as far as I'm concerned, I have reason to be sceptical of your very existence, due to the still possible theory of sollipsism; and thus all your points are at best figments of my imagination. Or that you may be a philosophical zombie and thus I have no interest in arguing with you. Or that given phenomenology, my point of view, if subjective, is just as absolute and universal as any one could be. I do not. This is because I accept that...

*...Different questions are to be solved in different epistemological/ontological frameworks *(hope I haven't lost you there, but don't worry, I have examples).

Just to remind you: I had written that a culture that promotes sexism is bad while one that campaigns against sexism is good (let everything else be equal). You responded that one cannot call a culture superior to another.

Now, imagine I had written that rape is bad, and punishing rape offenders is good. Would you have stumbled into the discussion in a state of shock (shock due to the infamy of my claims) to cry _"Well that's just, like, your opinion, man!"_?

Because that's what you did in this thread. And it's no more justified in the imaginary case I just presented than in the actual case that just happened.

*Examples:*
All the philosophical debates mentioned above would certainly be amusing. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, which was: _"which culture is better, sexism or not sexism?"_. This discussion is similar in nature to _"which presidential candidate is better, Bush or Kerry?"_. If I stated that Kerry was superior to Bush, and you countered with _"you cannot judge presidents scientifically, because this is subjective!"_, you'd be derailing the thread with bullshit.

That's what you do. You use these philosophical arguments as tricks to derail discussions and suggest insane conclusions. Creationists do this all the time: _"look, according to Kuhn and Feyerabend, all science is subjective! So creationism and evolution should both be taught on equal footing!"_. Instead, you say: _"Look, according to Hume, science cannot say anything about morality! Thus "stoning raped women" is on equal footing with "punishing rapists"."_



			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Note: This is to prove a point, and has nothing to do with my thoughts on women. Let me make that clear.
> 
> Han Dynasty. Huge Empire and economy. I would say forcing women to obey their male counterparts is mistreatment. That didn't seem to slow their empire down.


Of course there is more to a culture than whether or not it is sexist. However, you would certainly agree that being sexist, in itself, is not a good thing. If you repeat for all other criteria ("is the culture racist? Is the culture promoting a fair chance of success to everyone? etc.") and_ all criteria are worse_ for one culture compared to another, then you can undoubtedly say that one culture is superior to the other. Of course this never happens (there is always some good and some bad). This is why people ask questions like _"is it better to have freedom or security"_, _"is it better to be rich or nice?"_, etc. That leads to inextricably complicated discussions. But theoretically, such discussions can be resolved to a certain extent (and that's why people have them).

In the end, you can always make the following thought experiment: "take twice the same culture, except one treats women like shit and the other does not. Which one is superior?".

Note that all of this has no bearing on the debate with OutlawJohn, as he is stating boldly that no two cultures can be compared whatsoever. Thus if one culture was poor, sexist, racist, cruel, unfair, artistically and scientifically incompetent, and another was rich, tolerant, generous, fair, artistically and scientifically thriving, OutlawJohn would still say that one cannot call one culture superior to the other.

Your examples (China, the US, etc.) show that you do not subscribe to this view, and thus you are arguing about something different.

Though such statements surprise me:





			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Beating women doesn't make the world better or worse.


So would you say that, all other things being equal, beating women does not make the world worse?


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 20, 2011)

> I would welcome you to do that, but it would be kind of irrelevant as that wasn't the point I was making. The feature I was keying in on, was that the worth of society is not a static unchanging law that was here before we were. We each have our own. Just like I think the world would be a better place with more socialism, but CTK may not. CTK's world may be superior to mine, but it may not be. And to spout that violence towards women is inherently wrong and is an immutable fact, like I garnered from Maj1n is ridiculous. Its a subjective position, no matter how much a majority of people would like to think it isn't. You can argue the point till the cows come home, it won't change that it is an opinion.


What is your own personal view on beating women, does it make the world a better or worse place?

For your argument to have some sort of slight validity, we would have to been living in a world of various equally enticing alternatives. Yet your arguments have failed to show anything enticing about what you are suggesting. Not have I seen you attempt to do that in a sufficient matter. You are all "Hey look here is an empire that was successful at being an empire!". I am sorry for saying this but Outlaw hasn't done a good job either but I think he gave better arguments, although in this case this is debatable. Saying that Ancient Athens was an empire and had slavery and was highly sexist does not lead to the conclusion that Ancient Athens is a superior alternative to our own societies. Same with your other examples.  And even if it was, it still have to put itself into comparison, to the biggest possible decree an Ancient Athens without sexism in comparison with one with it.

You are not even attempting to show how your examples are better because of their differences, specifically more beating of women. 



> he feature I was keying in on, was that the worth of society is not a static unchanging law that was here before we were. We each have our own. Just like I think the world would be a better place with more socialism, but CTK may not. CTK's world may be superior to mine, but it may not be. And to spout that violence towards women is inherently wrong and is an immutable fact, like I garnered from Maj1n is ridiculous. Its a subjective position, no matter how much a majority of people would like to think it isn't. You can argue the point till the cows come home, it won't change that it is an opinion.



Opinions are not equal. We all have one opinion and one ass hole, but it doesn't mean that our opinion has any validity in it or is any special. I am not sure what you mean by socialism but based on your views so far that I don't like I am going to prematurely jump to conclusion that you mean Communism. One of you might be correct and the other one might be basing his opinion on things that make absolutely no sense and generally on nonsense. 

So while opinions are not static, modern more informed opinions might be better than some older ones. You have done a poor job arguing about whether beating of women is utterly irrelevant of the world. Or if you did not want to argue for that, you have not successfully argued how all opinions are equally valid and how all cultures are equal. 

The reason the majority of people hold the opinion that beating a human being, specifically women is bad, is because they they can realize the negative consequences of that action. If you disagree with that view you don't have to say that "But beating women might make the ones who are beating them happy". You have to show how that consequence if you consider it a positive is more important than the negative consequences. 
Actions that oppress people and harm them, are not viewed so negatively by society because society turns a blind eye to possible positives.  Simply put the positives are extremely limited to the negatives.  To make any kind of qualitative argument, you have to play in our ball game and make comparisons. Not accept all views are equal and all things as equal. Show how something has more validity and is indeed better than something else. 


I can further analyze it, but I want to see your opinion on the "beating women" issue first.

The previous comment I responded to, pretty much was showing the view that infrastructure and growth of nation is important but the prosperity of women isn't which isn't exactly cultural relativism. The way you express yourself is self-defeating and confusing to say the least. 

And then you said that this is not really your view and you believe that all views are equal or subjective but you did not throw any evidence on that  being valid.  Other than I guess "opinions change".


----------



## Petenshi (Feb 20, 2011)

> impersonal said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is more to a culture than whether or not it is sexist. However, you would certainly agree that being sexist, in itself, is not a good thing. If you repeat for all other criteria ("is the culture racist? Is the culture promoting a fair chance of success to everyone? etc.") and_ all criteria are worse_ for one culture compared to another, then you can undoubtedly say that one culture is superior to the other. Of course this never happens (there is always some good and some bad). This is why people ask questions like _"is it better to have freedom or security"_, _"is it better to be rich or nice?"_, etc. That leads to inextricably complicated discussions. But theoretically, such discussions can be resolved to a certain extent (and that's why people have them).
> ...


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 20, 2011)

> Like I said, if everything else is equal then women being beat doesn't have an effect on the overall condition of the society. Which, I assumed is what criteria Maj1n was using when he was discussing what is 'better'.



That answers my above question about your personal views. I also suspected at much as that is the conclusion that one would come to by reading your posts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petenshi, a human being being beaten up is bad on itself. We don't need to look for secondary negative consequences of the action.  Although we can find them and they do matter. The negative consequences it causes on the person which is being beaten are also there. And its pretty obvious. No society does not think that beating women is bad on purely emotional reasons. And no you have not provided arguements why the well being of the person being beaten is utterly irrelevant and everything else is relevant.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:
			
		

> But, assuming the rest is equal that would also mean that treating women like shit doesn't affect the societies ability to do everything else. Which would make it irrelevant.


By that logic _everything_ is irrelevant. You can just get rid of each and every thing that society gives if you can just isolate it (show that is has no bearing on the rest). By negating the possibility of an intrinsic worth _in anything_, you're negating the meaning of "good" and "bad" -- because anything that is good or bad is ultimately based on something's _intrinsic_ worth.

And so when you say that wife beating does not make the world worse, you're contradicting yourself: according to your world view, there's nothing good and nothing bad, so the term "worse" is meaningless.

I have explained already in great length why such a position is utterly ridiculous whenever we're discussing moral subjects such as sexism.


			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> If the Middle East treated everyone fairly and just, would Maj1n still have problem with it? I am going to say no. And that being the case leads me to believe he is basing his entirety of whether the middle east is worse than america on social issues.


Uh, indeed. Though these are moral issues. And it's perfectly legitimate to be "biased" against people who have bad morals. For examples, we put murderers and pedophiles in prison, we don't hire assholes if we can get nice people instead (all other things being equal), etc.

You sound as if discriminating against bad things, and preferring good things instead, was not justified.


			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> All I am saying is that it depends on the criteria you are using.


No shit. And "sexism is bad" is a valid criterion. Just like "happiness is good" and several others. Do you disagree, ie. would you say that sexism is good and happiness is bad?

Or do you disagree with the very idea of discussing the morality of something? If yes, why do you only disagree when we're discussing the middle east, and not, for example, when discussing a prison sentence or a presidential election?


----------



## maj1n (Feb 20, 2011)

Petenshi said:
			
		

> But, assuming the rest is equal that would also mean that treating women like shit doesn't affect the societies ability to do everything else. Which would make it irrelevant. We believe treating women is wrong not on the basis of some logic that we think women will have a better life and be able to provide for their kids who will build up the economy Etc Etc. No one thinks that far when they go to rallies to support womens rights. It is for the most part a conditioned and emotional belief. I don't even remember a time where I didn't think that. And to me, that shows it is more or less ingrained in mainstream culture rather than people hating women for all their lives and then suddenly coming to a conclusion they were wrong because of X, Y, Z.


I do, apart from the obvious personal moral viewpoint, improving a womans lot in life improves society as a whole, there has been many surveys and studies that show this (which i posted).

So in fact, your entire argument of subjectivity wouldn't even hold, because it can be statistically demonstrated that women equality is something that benefits human societies.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Feb 20, 2011)

A cruel summary of Petenshi's argument is: He believes that beating women is neither bad nor good as everything else is more important than their well being or more precisely that their well being is utterly irrelevant. He assumes that the beating of women does not affect anything else negatively. And he defends that personal belief on the grounds of subjectivity and on the grounds that all opinions are equal or that we can't quantify between which opinions are superior than the others.

Am I wrong in anything? Where? I hope I am not misunderstanding something here.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 20, 2011)

maj1n said:


> I do, apart from the obvious personal moral viewpoint, improving a womans lot in life improves society as a whole, there has been many surveys and studies that show this (which i posted).
> 
> So in fact, your entire argument of subjectivity wouldn't even hold, because it can be statistically demonstrated that women equality is something that benefits human societies.



I think we should avoid going there, as this would derail the thread even further, though of course you have a point.


			
				Narutofann12 said:
			
		

> A cruel summary of Petenshi's argument is: He believes that beating women is neither bad nor good as everything else is more important than their well being or more precisely that their well being is utterly irrelevant. He assumes that the beating of women does not affect anything else negatively. And he defends that personal belief on the grounds of subjectivity and on the grounds that all opinions are equal or that we can't quantify between which opinions are superior than the others.
> 
> Am I wrong in anything? Where? I hope I am not misunderstanding something here.


That's exactly what I get as well.


----------



## Ceria (Feb 20, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Sounds like she was basically surrounded and gang raped. Next time CBS should send better security, it's outrageous that a blond white woman somehow found herself alone among 200 foreign men during a revolution.
> 
> Hope she recovers alright. Is Egypt is even looking for the rapists?



Egypt's got bigger problems at the moment, i'd be surprised if there was an actual investigation going on. Not that the situation doesn't warrant it, but in a mob atmosphere like that finding evidence that hasn't been trampled on or contaminated would be difficult i assume.

I feel sorry for the journalist, going over there only to bring news to the outside world, and that's the thanks they gave


----------



## Gino (Feb 20, 2011)

I really hope that reporter recovers from this.Also a lot of assclowns in this thread need to get their helmets back on....


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 20, 2011)

Lol, not much to argue anymore. This getting to serious for my liking. I concede to everyone. So, hooray for you guys.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 20, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Lol, not much to argue anymore. This getting to serious for my liking. I concede to everyone. So, hooray for you guys.



You didn't even answer to my post. 




soulnova said:


> Wait, you mean you don't like the way they are referring to you? Like... me and other women feel about people defending the mistreatment of females!? GASP AND AWE! Yes, sweetheart, that's the part you need to feel if something is "bad". What you are failing to remember is something called *EMPATHY*. Empathy makes us the successful social creatures we are because we have learned to take others in consideration. Let's see, for example, the following questions and the answers.
> 
> Would you like to still be target of "insults"? No. You have made that clear.
> Would you like to be hit with a stick because you disagree with the rest in this thread? I'm going to go ahead and say No (unless you are into that kind of thing).
> ...




Pentenshi, your latest responses really surprised me . Please answer the questions above too.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 20, 2011)

soulnova said:


> You didn't even answer to my post.



Sorry my guy, but at this point, I'm being attacked at all angles. As much as I love a healthy debate, this is becoming more tedious than it is fun.

But, if you'd like debate through messaging, just send me your argument, and I'll gladly oblige.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 20, 2011)

> As much as I love a healthy debate, this is becoming more tedious than it is fun.



You found this debate "funny"? It started with a horrible, HORRIBLE news incident and then all common sense went to hell when people started arguing culture, the Quran and the treatment of women. This wasn't supposed to be "fun" to start with. Disgusting and excruciating are better terms for it.




> But, if you'd like debate through messaging, just send me your argument, and I'll gladly oblige.



Sorry OutlawJohn, there's no debate. You just had to write three words to answer those questions. Either Yes or No on each one. I don't need an explanation or an argument from you, the answers would talk by themselves.

Would you like to still be target of "insults"?
Would you like to be hit with a stick because you disagree with the rest in this thread?
Do you think other people WANT to be treated like that?

If you can't even answer these simple questions, it means you don't want to accept the truth that doing that is wrong no matter the culture. Either that or you lack basic empathy skills to answer them in the first place and need professional help ASAP. Good luck.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 20, 2011)

soulnova said:


> You found this debate "funny"? It started with a horrible, HORRIBLE news incident and then all common sense went to hell when people started arguing culture, the Quran and the treatment of women. This wasn't supposed to be "fun" to start with. Disgusting and excruciating are better terms for it.



Now you're just trolling me bro. I joined this forum to debate, because I find debating fun. Never said I found the subject here funny.



> Sorry OutlawJohn, there's no debate. You just had to write three words to answer those questions. Either Yes or No on each one. I don't need an explanation or an argument from you, the answers would talk by themselves.
> 
> Would you like to still be target of "insults"?
> Would you like to be hit with a stick because you disagree with the rest in this thread?
> ...



Again, trolling. The others understood what I meant, but didn't agree. You clearly just don't understand.

I never said what was done to this poor woman wasn't wrong, I said that its impossible to call a culture objectively inferior. Nothing more, nothing less. I suggest you reread this thread and find out where you missed the point. And when you want to hold a proper debate instead of acting like a five year old, message me.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 20, 2011)

Deeeeevil said:


> she *deserve it* I have* no pitty for her *they where protesting for democracy and *vote to rape her thats all.*


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 20, 2011)

Deeeeevil said:


> she deserve it I have no pitty for her they where protesting for democracy and vote to rape her thats all.



Awesome trolling ! Too bad it's so obvious !

Try harder.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 20, 2011)

Deeeeevil said:


> she deserve it I have no pitty for her they where protesting for democracy and vote to rape her thats all.


----------



## Tkae (Feb 20, 2011)

soulnova said:


> You found this debate "funny"? It started with a horrible, HORRIBLE news incident



Oh the humanity


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 20, 2011)

Deeeeevil said:


> law does not protect the fools What did she expect? 18 days protesting with
> accumulated high levels of tetosterone Arab Men, I mean *come on we consummated our new found freedom* by sticking up a White womens ass from the West lol. Its going to take her swollen red Vagina weeks to seal up. CSI will have a hard time figuring out who raped her when they taken semen sample of 100 different tadpoles swimming in her vagina LOL
> I bet she got on her knees in a circle and got bukkake by 200 Arabs Cant wait to see pics



So you live in Egypt, yea? I wonder if you'd still feel the same if 100+ Arabs gave you the same treatment. 

You are either a troll and obvious at that, or you are a sick bastard.


----------



## hyakku (Feb 21, 2011)

Hold on, I'm not going to jump into the obviously stupid morally relativistic argument, but what dumb ass is asserting that the mistreatment of women doesn't have a pervading effect on almost all aspects of society?

Forget socials measurements, GDP is greatly affected by womens rights. Studies have shown that capitalization and democratization that provides women more rights, responsibilities and access to resources reflect better on society as a whole, including in increased productivity. This is due to the fact that women are more likely to spend the wares on familial or house hold items, simultaneously adding both value and resources into the home whilst alleviating the traditional male burden. This allows for greater, more efficient interactivity between family units and lower reports of disease and sickness in younger children (through the mitigation of malnutrition and neglect associated in nations where women are looked down upon). I have many studies and gender papers from IR already saved if some require sources (although I would've thought s bit of sense and intuition would've illuminated the nonsense being spouted here)

In fact, in many nations in which women have rights, their is actually unfair, double dip that has recently been discussed and theorized in gender studies  when it comes to women. Namely, they not only work now in the workforce with increasing numbers, but their domestic workload has not been proportionally shifted to their partners, or, with women in a single family house hold with children (which is far more likely in these nations than a man having custody of his children,), they no longer even have alternative support.

 In a sense, women who work fully while maintaining a significant domestic house hold role actually provide MORE productivity in certain economic realms of highly developed nations than men do. In either sense, even if you have no emotional attachment to the treatment of women, there are all the logical and economic reasons in the world to detest it, hence a being trying to argue from logic should never support such ignorance. I am disappoint in some of you in this thread, I presumed you all would recognize such axiomatic  notions.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 21, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Now you're just trolling me bro. I joined this forum to debate, because I find debating fun. Never said I found the subject here funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you have read the thread as you say, you should have known already that I'm a girl, not a "bro".  I made *huge points* about that to White Tiger and I see you didn't even bothered checking them.

I'm not debate trolling you sweetheart, I just wanted to make a point that some actions are wrong *no matter the culture* because the targets of said actions suffer because of it... Either way, I wont take this excruciating debate to PMs. Not taking that bait. 

Cheers.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 21, 2011)

soulnova said:


> I'm not debate trolling you sweetheart, I just wanted to make a point that some actions are wrong *no matter the culture* because the targets of said actions suffer because of it... Either way, I wont take this excruciating debate to PMs. Not taking that bait.
> 
> Cheers.



White Tiger and I didn't make anywhere near the same points. We debated completely different things, and I certainly didn't say that these actions weren't wrong because of these people's cultures.

If anything, we were debating how to properly use the words superior, or inferior, in a sentence.

But that's fine. Nice talking to you.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 21, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> White Tiger and I didn't make anywhere near the same points. We debated completely different things, and I certainly didn't say that these actions weren't wrong because of these people's cultures.
> 
> If anything, we were debating how to properly use the words superior, or inferior, in a sentence.
> 
> But that's fine. Nice talking to you.


When something is wrong compared to an alternative

this means one implicitly admits.

1.It is worse

2. It is not as good

3 It is inferior

These are all interchangeable and basically mean the same thing, the problem with you, is that your hung up on connotations of stating a culture is superior/inferior because you believe it somehow leads to genocide (something in which you explicitly accuse my stance of).

It is a knee-jerk reaction.

I believe a culture of equality between the sexes is superior to a patriarchal culture where men are treated superior to women.

Your argument would be that i can't say that, and indeed one can't say treating women well is better then mistreating them, something that Petenshi had to admit your kind of logic leads too.


----------



## WT (Feb 21, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Perhaps it is natural to be a leader, however the Quran mandates men to be the leader due to inherent superiority given by Allah.



Women have their places in society. They have the right to be heard, the right to freedom, the right to be respected, etc etc etc but the role of leadership has been given to men. This can be observed not only though out our history, but through out the animal kingdom as well. There is no sexism involved, not in anyway. 

Now, one more thing. I think your under the gross assumption that in a family, women have no voice and must completely surrender to the will of their husbands, even if they are under any kind of abuse. That is wrong. Islam permits the woman of the family to make decisions, advise and comfort their husbands. The Quran goes to the length of saying that husbands and wives are a veil for each other.

Furthermore, Islam has a very rich and power history of Scholars who have better understanding of Islam than you or me. One of these, of whom you have probably heard of, is the celebrated Mowlana Jalaluddin Rumi, Rumi (may Allah be pleased with him) writes a poem:



> The Prophet said that women totally dominate men of intellect and possessors of hearts. But ignorant men dominate women, for they are shackled by an animal ferocity. They have no kindness, gentleness or love, since animality dominates their nature. Love and kindness are human attributes; anger and sensuality belong to the animals. She is the radiance of God, she is not your beloved. She is a creator - you could say that she is not created.
> 
> Jalal al-Din Rumi



I'm not going to debate on this topic any more. I believe this poem is sufficient to understand the concept of love and women when it comes to Islam.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 21, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Women have their places in society. They have the right to be heard, the right to freedom, the right to be respected, etc etc etc but the role of leadership has been given to men. This can be observed not only_ though out our history_, but through out the animal kingdom as well. There is no sexism involved, not in anyway.



What? Women have been in leadership roles through history. Like, huh, I dunno, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria, perhaps?  Women that made their empires UBER powerful. 

 (you know, that reign by her own right, *gasp*).

If you care to take from the last century as example:
:



> Khertek Anchimaa-Toka	FTannu Tuva	Chairperson of the Presidium of the Little Khural
> Sükhbaataryn Yanjmaa	FMongolia	ActingFChairperson of the Presidium of the State Great Khural
> Soong Ching-ling	FPeople's Republic of China	ActingFCo-Chairperson
> Isabel Martínez de Perón	FArgentina	President
> ...


 


The poem was really cute, though. 
Sadly, everything you have said so far is not like what it shows there.  Sorry.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 21, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Women have their places in society. They have the right to be heard, the right to freedom, the right to be respected, etc etc etc but the role of leadership has been given to men. This can be observed not only though out our history, but through out the animal kingdom as well. There is no sexism involved, not in anyway.


Rofl.

'women have their place', thats the most used phrase by sexists.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Now, one more thing. I think your under the gross assumption that in a family, women have no voice and must completely surrender to the will of their husbands, even if they are under any kind of abuse. That is wrong. Islam permits the woman of the family to make decisions, advise and comfort their husbands. The Quran goes to the length of saying that husbands and wives are a veil for each other.


Yes women can give advice and suggest, but they cannot override their husband.

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). *So good women are the obedient,* guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for *those from whom ye fear rebellion*, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, *and beat them*. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. 
-4:34

Women who go against their husbands wishes, are told to be disciplined, and physically beating them is endorsed.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Furthermore, Islam has a very rich and power history of Scholars who have better understanding of Islam than you or me. One of these, of whom you have probably heard of, is the celebrated Mowlana Jalaluddin Rumi, Rumi (may Allah be pleased with him) writes a poem:
> 
> I'm not going to debate on this topic any more. I believe this poem is sufficient to understand the concept of love and women when it comes to Islam.


You mean you randomly grabbed some revisionist muslim?

Why don't you address the actual Islamic texts?

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." *The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." *-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301

Not only is this sahih hadith, the ruling of a womans testimony being half of a man is codified in the quran too.

Of course your particular personal Muhammad tends to always contradict the quran and Sahih hadith, we might have to make a distinction between your Muhammad, and the Muhammad as portrayed by quran.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 21, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Women have their places in society. They have the right to be heard, the right to freedom, the right to be respected, etc etc etc but the role of leadership has been given to men. This can be observed not only though out our history, but through out the animal kingdom as well. There is no sexism involved, not in anyway.


Saving this, pretty much assures no girl on these forums will ever regard you well again. 

Also, never heard of Cleopatra?


----------



## WT (Feb 21, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Saving this, pretty much assures no girl on these forums will ever regard you well again.
> 
> Also, never heard of Cleopatra?



Quick response to CTK, Cleopatra is one, Sheba is another (in the time of Prophet Solomon). Also lady Aisha lead battles as well (of course her understanding of Islam is far better than ours). 

The Quran describes a general rule, it may change depending upon the situation. 

Anyway, if its relevant, please note that role of leadership has changed over the centuries. Today its about politics, unlike the past where leaders fought their own battles. It may be the case that today's world of politics is capable of catering for women better than the olden days.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 21, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Quick response to CTK, Cleopatra is one, Sheba is another (in the time of Prophet Solomon). Also lady Aisha lead battles as well (of course her understanding of Islam is far better than ours).
> 
> The Quran describes a general rule, it may change depending upon the situation.
> 
> Anyway, if its relevant, please note that role of leadership has changed over the centuries. Today its about politics, unlike the past where leaders fought their own battles. It may be the case that today's world of politics is capable of catering for women better than the olden days.


Taking your words.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> but the role of leadership has been given to men. This can be observed not only though out our history, but through out the animal kingdom as well. There is no sexism involved, not in anyway.


You affirm that God gave Men the leadership position.

Now your contradicting your own God.

Your backtracking is obvious, its good to see actually.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 21, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Saving this, pretty much assures no girl on these forums will ever regard you well again.
> 
> Also, never heard of Cleopatra?



I found two muslim Queens Regent. 





> Razia Sultan, was the Sultan of Delhi in India from 1236 to May 1240. She was of Turkish Seljuks slave ancestry and *like some other Muslim princesses of the time, she was trained to lead armies and administer kingdoms if necessary*.[1] Razia Sultana, the fifth Mamluk Sultan, was one of the _few female sovereigns in the history of Islamic civilization_.









> Shajar al-Durr (Arabic: شجر الدر, "Tree of Pearls") [1][2] (Royal name: al-Malikah Ismat ad-Din Umm-Khalil Shajar al-Durr (Arabic: الملكة عصمة الدين أم خليل شجر الدر) (Nicknamed: أم خليل, Umm Khalil; mother of Khalil)[3] (d. 1257, Cairo) was the widow of the Ayyubid Sultan as-Salih Ayyub who *played a crucial role after his death during the Seventh Crusade against Egypt* (1249?1250). She was regarded by Muslim historians and chroniclers of the Mamluk time as being of Turkic origin.[4] She became the Sultana of Egypt on May 2, 1250, marking the end of the Ayyubid reign and the starting of the Mamluk era


----------



## WT (Feb 21, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Taking your words.
> 
> 
> You affirm that God gave Men the leadership position.
> ...



Wasn't backtracking. Islam is very wide and flexible, there must have been a reason why lady Aisha, a very knowledgeable scholar actually lead a battle. She knew more about Islam than us. You are under the assumption that these are contradictions. However, they may appear as contradictions because of the limited knowledge and understanding we have but in actuality are not. You have to understand that the rules apply to select cases, thats the exact reason why scholars discourage people like me to debate, because I don't have enough knowledge on the issues.


----------



## Karsh (Feb 21, 2011)

Tl;dr thread, the news makes me sick to my stomach though unsurprising considering the chaos in the area added to the cultural thoughts on the importance of women. Disgusting.



White Tiger said:


> Women have their places in society. They have the right to be heard, the right to freedom, the right to be respected, etc etc etc but the role of leadership has been given to men. This can be observed not only though out our history, but through out the animal kingdom as well. There is no sexism involved, not in anyway.



Gender binary isn't absolute canon no matter who tries to make it so. That's just how it is and it's useless to go about giving excuses as truths to why it should be so and how exceptions are exceptions and so forth, unless it's because you're looking for cultural order in society, not the truth of things.
Because of course one of the countless examples, hienas are ungodly and unnatural amirite.

I get it's most likely your opinion reinforced by your religion, but wow, I will never agree.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 21, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Wasn't backtracking. Islam is very wide and flexible, there must have been a reason why lady Aisha, a very knowledgeable scholar actually lead a battle. She knew more about Islam than us. You are under the assumption that these are contradictions. However, they may appear as contradictions because of the limited knowledge and understanding we have but in actuality are not. You have to understand that the rules apply to select cases, thats the exact reason why scholars discourage people like me to debate, because I don't have enough knowledge on the issues.



I hope you knew that Aisha leading a battle in Islam and failing disastrously, is used, in Hadith explicitly, as the reason why women should not be leaders.

No bearing on the quranic verse anyway.
*
Men are in charge of women*, *because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,* and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for *those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them*. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. 
-4:34

Your wishy washy attitude that 'men should be leaders of women, this isn't sexist, btw you can have women leaders sometimes'

Is just you trying to state the quranic verse is right (in its sexist attitude) but wanting to say Islam allows women to be leaders as well because your getting the shit hammered out of you in this thread for supporting a sexist thing.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

> If anything, we were debating how to properly use the words superior, or inferior, in a sentence.


Well we were debating that we could use inferior and superior to judge cultures. You were saying we _couldn't_ because its _impossible_ to judge what's inferior. 

======​That "*Women* have their *places* in *society*." came off incredibly sexist. 

*"but the role of leadership has been given to men."*

Men *made themselves* leaders, powerhouses and whatnot, they weren't "*Given*" leadership (except in Islam that's how it is). Women have been treated badly since the dawn of time and it still goes on (though worse in Islam) and Islam preaches this behavior against women.

You say that women have a role in Islam, but that's also incorrect. But alas, I've debate this to be wrong many a times.

You say you aren't going to debate it, but you came in here to post some man's interpretation (lived far after Muhammad) of a religion he has changed to his liking? Its a poem that holds no bearing on Islam or the Qur'ān, especially since Muhammad and the Qur'ān disagree entirely with that poem...


----------



## Adonis (Feb 21, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Islam is very wide and flexible



Few religions are flexible; the people and cultures that adopt them are what makes them flexible.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 21, 2011)

You making me post lots of interesting historical bits. 



> *Ca. 500 B.C. Queen Tomyris of Massagetai*
> 
> The legendary Scythian queen who defeated and killed Cyrus the Great in 529 B.C. Tomyris became the leader of the Massegetai upon the death of her husband. Cyrus the Great founder of the Achaemenid Empire wanted her kingdom and offered to marry her for it, but she declined, he attacked her kingdom. Cyrus destroyed the section of Tomyris' army led by her son, who was taken prisoner and committed suicide. Tomyris and her army ranged itself against the Persians and defeated their forces. Cyrus was killed. Herodotus in his "Histories" passages I-201 to I-214 has mentioned the encounter between Cyrus and Queen Tomyris.






> Cyrus was pretty pumped that this turn of events, and sent a messenger to Tomyris telling her that he'd release her son if she would just hand over all of her lands, possessions, freedom, and money, and also marry him so they could get busy. She responded by saying:
> 
> "Now listen to me and I will advise you for your good:  give me back my son and get out of my country with your forces intact, and be content with your triumph over one-third of the Massagetae.  If you refuse, I swear by the sun our master to give you more blood than you can drink, for all your gluttony."





> Cyrus was killed and Tomyris had his corpse beheaded and then crucified,[5] and shoved his head into a wineskin filled with human blood. She was reportedly quoted as saying, *"I warned you that I would quench your thirst for blood, and so I shall"*



The level of badassery is over 9000!!!


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> ======​That "*Women* have their *places* in *society*." came off incredibly sexist.
> 
> *"but the role of leadership has been given to men."*
> 
> Men *made themselves* leaders, powerhouses and whatnot, they weren't "*Given*" leadership (except in Islam that's how it is). Women have been treated badly since the dawn of time and it still goes on (though worse in Islam) and Islam preaches this behavior against women.



It's also worth noting that there have been plenty of cultures in which women were put above men, such as with the Iroquois.  Plenty of instances in nature, too.  The argument that 'it happens a lot and is therefore supposed to be that way' is retarded.


Anywho, this thread just reminds me yet again why I am glad I was raised in a mostly secular home.  Some of these posts are just sickening.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

Gaawa-chan said:


> It's also worth noting that there have been plenty of cultures in which women were put above men, such as with the Iroquois.  Plenty of instances in nature, too.  The argument that 'it happens a lot and is therefore supposed to be that way' is retarded.
> 
> 
> Anywho, this thread just reminds me yet again why I am glad I was raised in a mostly secular home.  Some of these posts are just sickening.



I have Iroquois in my family. pek 

Ahem....yes, it should be noted. The Native American culture and lifestyle has been something I have loved for a long time (Mother studied them and was an Archeologist) , especially in these instances. 

Awesome set by the way :33


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 21, 2011)

maj1n said:


> When something is wrong compared to an alternative
> 
> this means one implicitly admits.
> 
> ...



Except that whole thing is wrong because: wrong =/= inferior.

To be wrong is to be incorrect, or not in conformity with fact or truth.

To be inferior is to be of low quality compared to something else.

I can easily believe that something is wrong, and not believe that those who follow that certain something to be inferior. You can't seem to grasp that.

My main point has been simple. There is no way to objectively call a culture inferior to another. Yes, you can believe so. But you believing so is subjective. Why? Because you're calling it inferior by comparing it to your morals, and finding it lacking.

1) I can not agree with something, and call it 'wrong', but that in no way means that I believe that its inferior, or that I am superior.

2) You can call a culture 'inferior', but that is based off what you have learned, and been taught to believe. It is subjective. You cannot prove that this culture is inferior. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence that states that you're moral standing is right, while there's is wrong.



Terra Branford said:


> Well we were debating that we could use inferior and superior to judge cultures. You were saying we _couldn't_ because its _impossible_ to judge what's inferior.



Yes, you can use superior and inferior to judge cultures, but it would be subjective. You only believe them to be superior or inferior, because you have been raised a certain way.

In western society, we are raised to believe that woman are equal to us, for the most part. Since we are raised this way, we will naturally believe that a culture that does not agree is 'wrong' and in an extreme case, 'inferior.'

But, the problem is, we cannot prove that because they believe differently than us, that their culture is 'inferior' meaning having lower quality compared to ours.

Now, if we could somehow prove, with scientific evidence, that those who don't consider woman equal in all ways to men are less than those who do, then we could rightfully say that they are inferior. But we can't.

Until we can, I prefer to say that, in my personal opinion, that their way is wrong. But since I can't prove that I am right, without being biased towards my cause, then I have no right to say that they, or what they believe in, are less than I, and what I believe in.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Feb 21, 2011)

^ WHY are you people arguing over something so minor as whether or not you 'ought' to use words in a specific way?

Why is it so horrible to base your arguments on your emotions anyway?  Pretty much everyone actually DOES and the logic almost always comes as a secondary justification.  This is an emotional issue; who the fuck cares about whether or not something is objectively 'superior' or 'inferior' if it's hurting people?!




Terra Branford said:


> I have Iroquois in my family. pek
> 
> Ahem....yes, it should be noted. The Native American culture and lifestyle has been something I have loved for a long time (Mother studied them and was an Archeologist) , especially in these instances.
> 
> Awesome set by the way :33



Intelligent system they had going.  Makes a lot more sense than going through the male line, anyway...

And thanks, I wuv it. :3


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

> Intelligent system they had going. Makes a lot more sense than going through the male line, anyway...
> 
> And thanks, I wuv it. :3


I agree! Makes loads more sense 

You're welcome! Always loved FF4 and Kain :33



OutlawJohn said:


> 2) You can call a culture 'inferior', but that is based off what you have* learned, and been taught to believe.* It is subjective. You cannot prove that this culture is inferior. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence that states that you're *moral standing is right, while there's is wrong.*



Really?

Any sane person knows what's right and what's wrong.  :/

Killing someone is wrong. But, according to your logic, if a culture sees killing people as good, we can't say its bad because no one knows what's good and therefore, *you* don't see as bad because *you* feel humans *don't know* right from wrong.

Interesting.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 21, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Except that whole thing is wrong because: wrong =/= inferior.
> 
> To be wrong is to be incorrect, or not in conformity with fact or truth.
> 
> To be inferior is to be of low quality compared to something else.


Where discussing morality, not physical phenomenon.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> I can easily believe that something is wrong, and not believe that those who follow that certain something to be inferior. You can't seem to grasp that.


No one in this thread has ever made claims on people, your just attempting to play the 'race' card now, which is a sign of poor argumentation.



			
				Outlaw said:
			
		

> My main point has been simple. There is no way to objectively call a culture inferior to another. Yes, you can believe so. But you believing so is subjective. Why? Because you're calling it inferior by comparing it to your morals, and finding it lacking.


I can, there are numerous studies for example, showing treating women equally improves society in virtually every way, and enough evidence has been posted in this thread to support that.

So try again.



			
				Outlaw said:
			
		

> 1) I can not agree with something, and call it 'wrong', but that in no way means that I believe that its inferior, or that I am superior.


In terms of morality, yes you do.

I'll give you a question 'do you believe treating women equally is better then beating them up'?

Yes or No will do.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> 2) You can call a culture 'inferior', but that is based off what you have learned, and been taught to believe. It is subjective. You cannot prove that this culture is inferior. *Why? Because there is no scientific evidence that states that you're moral standing is right, *while there's is wrong.


There has been posted (by me) numerous studies that show treating women equally as to men, improves society economically amongst many other reasons.

So yes it can be proven.

Your move.

*The fact you say you can morally state something is wrong, but right here state we cant say something is morally wrong because we cant prove it by science, shows you explicitly contradict yourself*

Just look at your words



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> 1) I can not agree with something, and call it 'wrong'
> ...
> 
> Why? Because there is no scientific evidence that states that you're moral standing is right, [/B]while there's is wrong


Arguing completely against yourself.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I agree! Makes loads more sense
> 
> You're welcome! Always loved FF4 and Kain :33



Me, too. :33




> Really?
> 
> Any sane person knows what's right and what's wrong.  :/
> 
> ...



Well... it's true that we have an in-built sense or predisposition towards moral behavior or a moral code, but it's very often oddly applied and/or rationalized.
For example, there's a tribe in South America that quite literally saw nothing wrong with murder.

I would agree that there is no objective morality, but also state that it is undeniable that there are moral codes which are objectively, logically superior to others.  For example, societies that promote equality for women fare better on an economic level, for what should be obvious reasons.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

Gaawa-chan said:


> Me, too. :33
> 
> Well... it's true that we have an in-built sense or predisposition towards moral behavior or a moral code, but it's very often oddly applied and/or rationalized.
> For example, there's a tribe in South America that quite literally saw nothing wrong with murder.
> ...



Yes, some people believe something is right and others see that something as wrong or vice versa. But, this doesn't change what's really wrong from right. Even though those people in SA feel its alright to murder, that doesn't change the fact that its _really_ wrong.


----------



## Karsh (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Any sane person knows what's right and what's wrong.  :/
> 
> Killing someone is wrong. But, according to your logic, if a culture sees killing people as good, we can't say its bad because no one knows what's good and therefore, *you* don't see as bad because *you* feel humans *don't know* right from wrong.
> 
> Interesting.



To be fair right and wrong is a pretty tricky business and incredibly complicated.
The appraisal process is initially genetic insofar that things like cooperation instead of killing and hurting others has become generally understood to be helpful for carrying on, but it is also heavily influenced by culture and then by individual experiences. If you had been taught all your life that certain things are acceptible and others are not then you will most likely be in tandem with your society in a lot of things so as to fulfill both individual and social goals.
But I digress, the world is merging and more and more people have ways to learn different thought processes and customs from their own. Raping someone just because you can or marginalizing someone because of categorization instead of whether or not they are personally a hurtful danger unto others should be a universal no-no by now.

Btw can't reply to you, but thank you, I like yours too! <3
I drew it myself. xD


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

Karsh said:


> To be fair right and wrong is a pretty tricky business and incredibly complicated.
> The appraisal process is initially genetic insofar that things like cooperation instead of killing and hurting others has become generally understood to be helpful for carrying on, but it is also heavily influenced by culture and then by individual experiences. If you had been taught all your life that certain things are acceptible and others are not then you will most likely be in tandem with your society in a lot of things so as to fulfill both individual and social goals.



I don't really see it as tricky. It should come naturally to a human. When you beat someone, its wrong, regardless of a culture's standards and views.

In the situation in which a culture feels it okay to harm people and whatnot, it doesn't mean it *is* okay, just okay for them because they don't know what's right and what's wrong.

The standard of what's right and wrong isn't shifted or changed by culture's views of, for example, murder being acceptable, its the matter of it "really" being right or wrong. If that makes sense.

If I grew up in a culture that felt murder was okay, I would still know its wrong and away from the "right" decision. What's wrong and what's right isn't something that changes, but something that you should know by heart no matter what you grew up in or where you were raised or who raised you.

(I love Penelo and Vaan. So cute together pek)


----------



## maj1n (Feb 21, 2011)

While it is true that our environmental upbringing shapes our beliefs and values, this is not a really good argumentation for anything.

To put it in a simpler perspective, a person ignorant of maths may disagree with a learned maths person that 1+1=2, however the issue of 'different upbringing' is not usable as any sort of defense, rebuttal or validation of ones views or other.

In other words, it is quite meaningless statement in discussion.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Feb 21, 2011)

So was she raped, sexually assaulted or battered?


----------



## Karsh (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I don't really see it as tricky. It should come naturally to a human. When you beat someone, its wrong, regardless of a culture's standards and views.



I understand what you are saying and of course agree on the wrongness of beating someone, though it does seem compelling how many things in western society today, which would be thought of as preposterous (like owning and mistreating slaves, human sacrifice and so on), were considered as "okay" and even a "right" in several societies and throughout history.



maj1n said:


> While it is true that our environmental upbringing shapes our beliefs and values, this is not a really good argumentation for anything.



It is quite pointless in the end, it would just be a "that's just how I am" excuse instead of an actual argumentation. Every healthy human is capable of making individual appraisals.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

Karsh said:


> I understand what you are saying and of course agree on the wrongness of beating someone, though it does seem compelling how many things in western society today, which would be thought of as preposterous (like owning and mistreating slaves, human sacrifice and so on), were considered as "okay" and even a "right" in several societies and throughout history.


I'm saying it doesn't matter if a culture is seeing something wrong as right. Just because they believe it is right doesn't change the fact that its still wrong 

It wasn't just the west that had slaves and thought it was okay. That's another example. Don't you think there were people going "this is wrong" despite the culture or time, saying it was okay?

My point is that it doesn't matter if a culture sees it as okay, its still wrong.


----------



## Karsh (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I'm saying it doesn't matter if a culture is seeing something wrong as right. Just because they believe it is right doesn't change the fact that its still wrong
> 
> It wasn't just the west that had slaves and thought it was okay. That's another example. Don't you think there were people going "this is wrong" despite the culture or time, saying it was okay?
> 
> My point is that it doesn't matter if a culture sees it as okay, its still wrong.



I understand your point though I'm afraid our opinions will differ on the case of subjectivity =P
I agree with you otherwise though, so my posts have just been silly nitpicking on a concept


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

Karsh said:


> I understand your point though I'm afraid our opinions will differ on the case of subjectivity =P
> I agree with you otherwise though, so my posts have just been silly nitpicking on a concept


And that's cool, I understand what you are saying.  

But...A person can have their subjectivity on the issue of what's right and wrong, but that doesn't necessarily negate what's _really_ right and wrong.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Really?
> 
> Any sane person knows what's right and what's wrong.  :/
> 
> ...



Your idea of right and wrong is formed by your upbringing. Thankfully, most societies think that killing is wrong. Not all societies think so for woman's rights.

Lol, you aren't understanding.

We can call them bad. But we cannot call them inferior. Why? Because committing murder doesn't make one inferior.



maj1n said:


> Where discussing morality, not physical phenomenon.



Except your based your entire previous post on wrong being a synonym for inferior. Which is untrue.



> No one in this thread has ever made claims on people, your just attempting to play the 'race' card now, which is a sign of poor argumentation.



Not pulling anything. 



> I can, there are numerous studies for example, showing treating women equally improves society in virtually every way, and enough evidence has been posted in this thread to support that.
> 
> So try again.



And this makes cultures who don't treat woman equally, objectively inferior just how?



> In terms of morality, yes you do.
> 
> I'll give you a question 'do you believe treating women equally is better then beating them up'?
> 
> Yes or No will do.



You didn't answer my point. I can believe an idea, or a practice is wrong, but not find the culture, or the people that follow it to be inferior. My morals tell me that its wrong, but seeing as my morals aren't a universal law, in no way can I say that they are inferior for not agreeing with me.

And yes.



> There has been posted (by me) numerous studies that show treating women equally as to men, improves society economically amongst many other reasons.
> 
> So yes it can be proven.



Those cultures thrive economically because their workforce is larger, obviously because woman work as well.

This in no way has any standing on how men treat their wives, and how woman are thought of in that society.



> *The fact you say you can morally state something is wrong, but right here state we cant say something is morally wrong because we cant prove it by science, shows you explicitly contradict yourself*
> 
> Just look at your words
> 
> Arguing completely against yourself.



And obviously you don't understand what I'm talking about. Read carefully, sir.

I can believe that something is wrong, basing it off of *my* morals. This is what I have been raised to believe. If I see someone hit a woman, because of the way I have been raised, I will believe that to be 'wrong'. Now, here you have to understand the word wrong. Its not wrong in the sense that 1>2, is wrong. Its wrong in the sense that it does not agree with what I have been raised to believe.

Now, is it 'wrong' in the sense that it is incorrect, and that I can prove, through use of science and mathematics that it is just not right, in that sense that 1>2? No, its not wrong in the sense.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

> Your idea of right and wrong is formed by your upbringing. Thankfully, most societies think that killing is wrong. Not all societies think so for woman's rights.
> 
> Lol, you aren't understanding.
> 
> We can call them bad. But we cannot call them inferior. Why? Because committing murder doesn't make one inferior.


"My" way of it is the the right way. Killing = bad. Rape = bad. Abuse = bad. Just because a culture thinks what's wrong is okay, doesn't make it so and for that, they are inferior as well as bad. 
As I said, any sane person knows right from wrong, the real right from wrong.

I'm not understanding? I understand what your saying, I disagree because what you are saying is well, silly. :/

When a culture acts inferior by doing these wrong things or whatnot, that makes them inferior to those that treat, for example, women better and equal.

Its you who is not understanding...


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> "My" way of it is the the right way. As I said, any sane person knows right from wrong, the real right from wrong.
> 
> I'm not understanding? I understand what your saying, I disagree because what you are saying is well, silly. :/
> 
> ...



And there you have it.

There's no such thing as the 'real right and wrong'. Only what you were raised to believe.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> And there you have it.
> 
> *There's no such thing as the 'real right and wrong'. Only what you were raised to believe.*



 @ the bolded. "No such thing as real right and wrong"? Are you friggin' serious?

I thought from the start that you'd say this but I didn't want to make an assumption. Its obvious I should have said it.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend right from wrong and the real form of it. I'll say it once last time so hopefully, you can understand:

It doesn't matter where you were raised or what you were raised to "believe", what's really right and what's really wrong, remains to be so. That is a meaningless argument. Maj1n's post summed it up very well:



> While it is true that our environmental upbringing shapes our beliefs and values, this is not a really good argumentation for anything.
> 
> To put it in a simpler perspective, a person ignorant of maths may disagree with a learned maths person that 1+1=2, however the issue of 'different upbringing' is not usable as any sort of defense, rebuttal or validation of ones views or other.
> 
> In other words, it is quite meaningless statement in discussion.


----------



## Juno (Feb 21, 2011)

erictheking said:


> So was she raped, sexually assaulted or battered?



Sounds like she was beaten (with flagpoles) and sexually assaulted (stripped and pinched), but not raped. The media heard 'brutal' and 'sexual assault' and ran with the assumption of rape, but the people close to Logan say that's not what happened.

I now return you to the off topic rants.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 21, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> @ the bolded. "No such thing as real right and wrong"? Are you friggin' serious?
> 
> I thought from the start that you'd say this but I didn't want to make an assumption. Its obvious I should have said it.
> 
> ...



Maj1n's post didn't sum up anything.

I can prove to an ignorant person using mathematics, that 1+1= 2.

In fact, I could grab any educated person off the streets, or even thousands, or millions of them, and they could all do the same thing. No matter how many people I get, they would all assert my claim of 1+1=2.

In fact, I could have him go get one rock, and then go and get a rock myself, and then he would understand that if he has one, and someone else has one, that it's two.

The same can't be said for morals.

Trying to prove that the morals of western society are correct, while others are therefore incorrect, is impossible.

Think with any kind of objectivity, and you'll come to this conclusion.


----------



## Terra Branford (Feb 21, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Maj1n's post didn't sum up anything.
> 
> *I can prove to an ignorant person using mathematics, that 1+1= 2.*
> 
> ...


You obviously don't understand Maj1n's post... *sigh*
Why don't you look at the bolded part and rethink what we've been telling you. Maybe you'll see then 

I suppose this will go no where. You won't ever understand how impossible ridiculous you are being with the logic of: 


> There's no such thing as the 'real right and wrong'.


Debating this with you any longer will be pointless as you'll continue to think there is no (real) right and wrong because cultures see it differently....Bah!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 21, 2011)

Looks like the bras came off in here after I left. Remember this is from someone who considers themselves reasonable and worldly. So now this thread has two incidents of putting one's foot in the mouth, one saying women being beaten doesn't make the world a worse place and another telling us that women have a place....behind a man or possibly under him.


----------



## maj1n (Feb 22, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> Maj1n's post didn't sum up anything.
> 
> I can prove to an ignorant person using mathematics, that 1+1= 2.
> 
> ...


No.

Read carefully, the symbols '+' and '=' are man-made, if you argue culture and morality cannot be compared to one another because of 'our upbringing' equivalently you wouldn't tell someone 1+1=2, as your understanding of said symbols relies on upbringing too.

You believe morality is arbitrary, that there is no right and wrong for us, that is a foolish notion, demonstratable by the fact that so long as you accept 1+1=2, morality is not arbitrary for us humans.

I'll tell you why.

*Morality is a mental system of right and wrong that is, in the end, based on our physiological instinct to survive*

Because of this basis to which we all share, it is in fact possible to compare morals, and therefore culture, just as we can understand and evaluate each others mathematics.

Why do you think its instinctive to want to care for children?
Why do you think its instinctive that it is a good thing to improve the economy?
Why do you think its instinctive that torture is not considered a virtue?
Why do you think its a good thing that helping one another, is considered a virtue?

The proof that morality for us humans is not arbitrary for us, but is measurable and can be evaluated, is that we humans can actually agree and convince one another of our points of view.

You need to take a look at practical reality, rather then relying on your rather naive philosophy.



			
				OutlawJohn said:
			
		

> You didn't answer my point. I can believe an idea, or a practice is wrong, but not find the culture, or the people that follow it to be inferior. My morals tell me that its wrong, but seeing as my morals aren't a universal law, in no way can I say that they are inferior for not agreeing with me.
> 
> *And yes.*
> .*.
> There's no such thing as the 'real right and wrong'*


Your contradicting yourself, you explicitly admit you believe treating women equally, is *better* then treating them badly.

*that is saying treating women better is superior to treating them badly, that treating them badly is a worser attitude and belief*

Therefore it is equivalently valid for people to say cultures are superior to another.

It is *no different*.

All you show is you contradicting yourself, i am not impressed by your repeated attempts to play the 'race card' trying to accuse people whom say a culture is better then another, as if they demean a group of people.

I certainly consider a culture of sexual equality superior to a culture where men are considered always dominant over women.

Going to accuse me of some type of prejudism now?

Grow up.

The argument isn't whether you personally can do this or that, you can certainly personally view things however you want, the argument is your rather incorrect statement that one cannot view cultures as better or worse then another.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

_Is it possible to take the philosophical stance that morality is subjective?_ Sure. It is also probably true. Let's not go into what other things are subjective (science itself can be considered largely subjective for example, following Kuhn).
_
Is it possible to say anything about the value of things from an amoral perspective?_ Obviously not. And we do want to be able to cast judgement on stuff, in order to decide how to act ourselves.

When someone discusses the value of something, is it stupid to counter that _"nothing has value for morality is subjective"_? Yes. See answer to question above.

*Example 1:*
Me: Gaddafi is such an asshole!
OutlawJohn-lookalike: You can't say that. Morality is subjective, so you can't cast judgement objectively.
Me: What you just said is retarded and irrelevant.
*
Example 2:*
Me: Sexism is such a bad thing!
OutlawJohn-lookalike: You can't say that. Morality is subjective, so you can't cast judement objectively.
Me: What you just said is retarded and irrelevant.

*Example 3:*
Me: Should I treat women like shit?
OutlawJohn-lookalike: I can't say anything about that. Morality is subjective, so you can't cast judgement objectively.
Me: What you just said is retarded and irrelevant.


Obviously, examples 1, 2 and 3 rarely occur. OutlawJohn lookalikes only use their argument when it suits them. That is, they only use it to support the horrible practices of Saudi Arabia, for example. Popping into the necessary moral debate and derailing it with their annoying pseudo-philosophical insight.

Also OutlawJohn, your fixation on the term "inferior/superior" is seriously bothering me. For the record, inferior/superior is synonymous with "better/worse". If someone is a good man for practicing good, and if someone is a bad man for practicing evil, then a good man is superior to a bad man. By definition. But it seems to me that you're deadlocked in denial because you don't want to lose face in this debate. I'm not going to help you.

Thanks for your attention.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Feb 22, 2011)

OutlawJohn said:


> I can prove to an ignorant person using mathematics, that 1+1= 2.



I bet you couldn't.


----------



## Punpun (Feb 22, 2011)

Haha I'm sure nobody can prove that. In fact ain't 1 + 1 = 2 ( ie something plus another something of equal value equal to two something) an axiom ?


----------



## -Dargor- (Feb 22, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It's a muslim thing.



.  .


----------



## Marknbrut (Feb 22, 2011)

Just read this story - Damn!

And whoever said 'its a Muslim thing' - fuck y'all. Raping is an act whereby man/men force themselves upon a woman without her consent. Read, when it says men, it means all type of men. They can be from any country, they can be from any race and they can be from any religion or non-religion. 

This thread is full of lazy-minded people, who can't even see something for what it actually is, but only try to capitalise on something for their own hatred. 

A human being diginity has been violated, there are millions of women diginity being violated everyday, in Congo, they are making it a fucking weapon. But little, lazy, children like you are only clutching to one stupid fact - Egypt, so it must be ALL muslim men. 

Get over your hatred and actually see the misgivings right on your door steps instead of always generalizing.


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 22, 2011)

Marknbrut said:


> And whoever said 'its a Muslim thing' - fuck y'all. *Raping is an act whereby man/men force themselves upon a woman without her consent.* Read, when it says men, it means all type of men. They can be from any country, they can be from any race and they can be from any religion or non-religion.


No way! Really? I never knew that! Thanks for enlightening us all. 

But really, it's _you_ who doesn't understand shit in this thread. Nobody is saying "only Muslims rape." They're saying that Middle-Eastern Muslim men are, in general, sexist pigs who treat women like shit. You really can't argue with that. 



> Get over your hatred and actually see the misgivings right on your door steps instead of always generalizing.


Oh please, stop the sanctimonious little white knight act. It's unbecoming of you.


----------



## Marknbrut (Feb 22, 2011)

> the sanctimonious little white knight act



Fuck religion, I did not in anyway make any accusation that Muslim men were saints, they are men like all other men. And I am in no way anything 'white' and I don't act. 

I totally agree there are a high number of sexist Arab men, they are disgusting. But you cannot in anyway deny that y'all are using the idenitity - Arab - as a slamming bat for all muslims. Say whatever you want, but this thread did make a generalization.


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

Marknbrut said:
			
		

> And I am in no way anything 'white'


**


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 22, 2011)

Marknbrut said:


> And I am in no way anything 'white' and I don't act.



...............


----------



## impersonal (Feb 22, 2011)

...In retrospect, it was kinda cute.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> ...In retrospect, it was kinda cute.



...............


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 22, 2011)

Marknbrut said:


> And I am in no way anything 'white' and I don't act.



Then what are you ? I've got a slur for every race. And I'm as white as they come.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 22, 2011)

Marknbrut said:


> And I am in no way anything 'white' and I don't act.


I-wait, what? 

Marknbrut, we know rape exist everywhere. 

What happened there was clearly Mob Mentally. Seems like they didn't rape her but pinched her and hit her with flagpoles. Mob Mentally is the reason I avoid concerts, big sport events and protests like the plague. It only requires one stupid fuck and everything goes to hell. If any, it became "easier" for them to target her because of their general view of foreign women. 

Seems like she's recovering steadily but slowly. :/


----------



## xxSasorixx (Feb 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> If you go to China or Japan, you won't see stuff like that.



And you wouldn't see tentacle rape in Egypt.

& "Crowded trains are a favourite location for groping, and a 2001 survey conducted in two Tokyo high-schools revealed that more than 70% of students had been groped while travelling on them"
Groping = Sexual Assault

In regards to China and gender equality - Have you heard of the one child policy?

To summarise - All places and all people are just as messed up and as cruel as each other.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Feb 22, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> You obviously don't understand Maj1n's post... *sigh*
> Why don't you look at the bolded part and rethink what we've been telling you. Maybe you'll see then
> 
> I suppose this will go no where. You won't ever understand how impossible ridiculous you are being with the logic of:
> ...





maj1n said:


> No.
> 
> Read carefully, the symbols '+' and '=' are man-made, if you argue culture and morality cannot be compared to one another because of 'our upbringing' equivalently you wouldn't tell someone 1+1=2, as your understanding of said symbols relies on upbringing too.
> 
> ...





impersonal said:


> _Is it possible to take the philosophical stance that morality is subjective?_ Sure. It is also probably true. Let's not go into what other things are subjective (science itself can be considered largely subjective for example, following Kuhn).
> _
> Is it possible to say anything about the value of things from an amoral perspective?_ Obviously not. And we do want to be able to cast judgement on stuff, in order to decide how to act ourselves.
> 
> ...



Alright guys, you win. At this point, its useless for me to reply, huh?

Nice debating with you all though.


----------



## Mook Mook the Bushman (Feb 22, 2011)

only in the cafe can mob mentality be misinterpreted as something else and then argued over for 17 pages

anyway terrible thread with a lot of terrible opinions

also whys everyone assuming they were muslims could have been a few christians in there too.

seriously though it was probably jews in the muslim equivalent of black face


----------



## killio (Feb 22, 2011)

Hello   , I'm New to NCcommunity 

I'm Egyptian   And One Of the army guys who saved her   and im a fan of naruto also  
First Im Sorry Was Lazy to read all Pages I read the first 5 pages 



and i'd like to say some stuff

- It has nothing to do with religion 
- It has nothing to do with the celebration 
 And Normal Egyptian Male Community  Ain't Horny .....



What Really Happened  I will Give u a Close Look From The Scene  ....


During The Revolution   There was Like 8 Days With No Police or stuff so the quantity Of the Drugs Increased like 330% More than the normal Quantity  
So 1- They Were Drugged Men

Also  In This Day In The Morning Some Foreign News Channel Pissed the Egyptian's Off I dunno Why .....   Maybe they supported mubarak or  something      I'v No Idea 
SO That Day Egyptian's In Tahrir Sqr Where Already Charged Towards Foreign Reporters     And The The Fact Number 2

Also How COME  A Blonde Reported Disappeared From The Sight Of 6 2.9 CM Tall Body Guards and the other Crew????  


Also We Armed Forces Asked All Reporter's Foreign And Local Reporters To Move From The Tahrir Sqr    BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE STUFF TO DO THAN  BEING THIER BODY GUARDS .....    



I'm Not Trying to Say It Was Her Mistake NO It Was THOSE MONSTER'S MISTAKE  Shared with the mistake of the channel sending a reporter inside the tahrir sqr  and  TOTALY IGNORING OUR DIRECT ORDERS .....


Any Way We Arrested Like 16 Male Was Involved In This and They are Facing a Rape Charge's   

P.S:  Rape Charges In Egypt = execution



Thanks All  , Sorry For mY bad English


Regard's 
Yougi


----------



## Punpun (Feb 22, 2011)

Hilarious.


----------

