I am curious about something....

[jahcs]

I had a rather large reply set up to post that attempted to establish my reasoning behind providing some of the points I tried to make. I realised it wasn't going to accomplish anything so I start fresh:

Ashock, I ask you to start from the begining. Disregard all discussion this thread has generated. Ignore the posts I have submitted. Sit down at a place prepared for you at our virtual dining table and explain your views on the original subject and perhaps what should be done about it. Feel free to share any relevant information from your past that affects your views on the subject.

I ask this in all seriousness. This was not posted to be a jibe or with a self-righteous-ignorant-wallowing-in-my-woe-is-me-attitude. I simply wish to hear your take on the issue.

[Jester]

Yes, but "religion" and "society" are extremely large concepts, which goes back to my initial criticism.

Can't someone support most of a religion, or a society, and still be critical of elements in it? Why does it have to be a "I support your society" vs. a "I oppose your society"?

There are admirable and loathsome things in every religion, and in every society, right?

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, but "religion" and "society" are extremely large concepts, which goes back to my initial criticism.

Can't someone support most of a religion, or a society, and still be critical of elements in it? Why does it have to be a "I support your society" vs. a "I oppose your society"?

There are admirable and loathsome things in every religion, and in every society, right?

Jester
[right][snapback]80608[/snapback][/right]

The key variable in the hypocrisy meter being pegged is that the role of women in some Islamic societies appears to escape the notice of Western Feminists. That appearance may be due to a lack of exposure since the Clintons left power. During the Clinton administration, there was a lot of talk about Women's Rights being advanced in an international sense, under UN auspices in the same vein as Human Rights in a broader sense.

The exportation of Women's Rights seems to have been muted since 9-11, as there are bigger fish to fry, but one still sees articles now and again on how the removal of the Taliban, for example, has restored some of the looser interpretations of cultural norms in Afghanistan.

The Church Police of Saudi Arabia, however, are still out and about, enforcing strict dress codes on the Burka Babes.

Occhi

[Ashock]

I had a rather large reply set up to post that attempted to establish my reasoning behind providing some of the points I tried to make.  I realised it wasn't going to accomplish anything so I start fresh:

Ashock, I ask you to start from the begining.  Disregard all discussion this thread has generated.  Ignore the posts I have submitted.  Sit down at a place prepared for you at our virtual dining table and explain your views on the original subject and perhaps what should be done about it.  Feel free to share any relevant information from your past that affects your views on the subject.

I ask this in all seriousness.  This was not posted to be a jibe or with a self-righteous-ignorant-wallowing-in-my-woe-is-me-attitude.  I simply wish to hear your take on the issue.
[right][snapback]80586[/snapback][/right]

I'm sort of busy right now, so not much time to answer. However, I'll give you the cliffnotes version.


Nazis treated Jews like sub-humans. Muslims treat women like sub-humans. A Jew that supported Nazis (well, impossible since they would have been dead anyway, but let's say Nazi beliefs) would have to have been a moron of the biggest proportions. A woman who.... well you get where this is going....

Of course you might dispute that Muslims treat women in that way, but if that is the case, there is no point in further discussion.



-A

[jahcs]

I'm sort of busy right now, so not much time to answer. However, I'll give you the cliffnotes version.
Nazis treated Jews like sub-humans. Muslims treat women like sub-humans. A Jew that supported Nazis (well, impossible since they would have been dead anyway, but let's say Nazi beliefs) would have to have been a moron of the biggest proportions. A woman who.... well you get where this is going....

Of course you might dispute that Muslims treat women in that way, but if that is the case, there is no point in further discussion.
-A
[right][snapback]80614[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, that did a pretty good job of it. If you notice, I did agree with your basic premise way back on page 1 of the thread. We just needed to skip all the filler and sidebar discussions in the middle to remind us we are basically on the same side. ;)

[Ashock]

Thanks, that did a pretty good job of it.  If you notice, I did agree with your basic premise way back on page 1 of the thread.  We just needed to skip all the filler and sidebar discussions in the middle to remind us we are basically on the same side. ;)
[right][snapback]80617[/snapback][/right]

Well... Cheers then :D


-A

[gekko]

Nazis treated Jews like sub-humans. Muslims treat women like sub-humans. A Jew that supported Nazis (well, impossible since they would have been dead anyway, but let's say Nazi beliefs) would have to have been a moron of the biggest proportions. A woman who.... well you get where this is going....

-A
[right][snapback]80614[/snapback][/right]

How can I put this? Your logic is simply wrong.

It only works if you do one of two things:

1) Equate nazism directly and absolutely with treating Jews as sub-human. Note that I'm not arguing that the Nazi's did this; I'm saying that there was more to Nazism than just treating the Jews as sub-human.

2) Assume that the treatment of Jews (or women, or homosexuals, or whoever the case may be) is absolutely integral and absolutely intwined with Nazism/Islam/etc. to the point of (1).

The reason your logic is simply wrong is that this is a gross oversimplification of very complex ideas. To say that there because are Muslims who mistreat women, Muslim culture = mistreating women is simply ridiculous - and yet that is just what you've done.

You've shown no understanding of the Muslim culture or faith beyond a single article detailing a single horific act. I can easily point you to dozens of articles discussing rape on North American University and College Campuses. Does that mean anyone who supports these institutions is clearly just being blind to reality?

You've made some pretty far reaching claims, and thus far given nothing to back them up. You've claimed (or insinuated) that all Muslim cultures treat women as animals. You've claimed that it is impossible for Muslim culture to grow past this state (yet you have not given a single reason why not). You've claimed that everyone who disagrees with you is simply ignoring the truth. Those are three very large claims - not facts, whatever you may say.

gekko

[jahcs]

Working with Ashock on these last few forum threads has shown me that he deals in absolutes, everything one way or the other. Once I grasped that feature of his debate I was able to develop a better understanding of his point of view.

Cheers :)

[whyBish]

deals in absolutes
[right][snapback]80668[/snapback][/right]

It's not until between around 8-10 years old that a child can understand more than absolutes.

[Ashock]

It's not until between around 8-10 years old that a child can understand more than absolutes.
[right][snapback]80671[/snapback][/right]

...and it is not until around 30+, that many a person can understand that some things in life are absolutes. Also, a certain backround helps.

Oh and if you think that you will yank my chain with your barely veiled attempts to insult me, I'm sorry to dissapoint you. I have learned not to pay attention to ignorant, naive fools. Now, that's clear enough for you, right?


-A


Edit: Have a nice day.

[Jester]

"The key variable in the hypocrisy meter being pegged is that the role of women in some Islamic societies appears to escape the notice of Western Feminists."

I'm not really sure what Western Feminists ™ you're listening to, then. As far as I've heard, the treatment of women in the third world generally (and in the more fundamentalist Islamic countries specifically) is one of the most important feminist issues today.

I suppose it's stupid to ask a question "where have you not heard differently." But I don't think that it would be representative to say that this has not been noticed by Western Feminists. Indeed, as far as I remember, it was one of their issues back when the Powers That Be were supporting Islamic governments, rather than toppling them.

Jester

[Jester]

"...and it is not until around 30+, that many a person can understand that some things in life are absolutes."

Like, say, the absolute and unquestionable mysogyny of 500,000,000 people, and the impossiblity of that changing.

It's practically a tautology.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

"The key variable in the hypocrisy meter being pegged is that the role of women in some Islamic societies appears to escape the notice of Western Feminists."

I'm not really sure what Western Feminists ™ you're listening to, then. As far as I've heard, the treatment of women in the third world generally (and in the more fundamentalist Islamic countries specifically) is one of the most important feminist issues today.

I suppose it's stupid to ask a question "where have you not heard differently." But I don't think that it would be representative to say that this has not been noticed by Western Feminists. Indeed, as far as I remember, it was one of their issues back when the Powers That Be were supporting Islamic governments, rather than toppling them.

Jester
[right][snapback]80684[/snapback][/right]

I think the UN has not emphasized that issue as much as it did pre 9-11. Why? Fear of a bomb on the East River. Kofi Anan showed a wide yellow streak in Iraq when, after one bomb, he pulled out the UN presence. He damned the UN's credibility as a collective security organization by doing so. I admit that he may have gotten a lot of under the table pressure from UN member nations to do just that, but in the matter of "image" the UN took a blow. Not from the bomb, but from the tail between the legs response to the bomb.

I may also not be reading the right stuff to see the extent of the pro women's campaigns. For example, 8 or 9 years ago, the genetic mutilation of young women in some African and Muslim lands was a huge cause celebre. It seems to have slowly dropped off the radar.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

I may also not be reading the right stuff to see the extent of the pro women's campaigns.  For example, 8 or 9 years ago, the genetic mutilation of young women in some African and Muslim lands was a huge cause celebre.  It seems to have slowly dropped off the radar. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]80723[/snapback][/right]

Likely I am not reading the 'right stuff' either. However, in May 1997, the federal government amended the Criminal Code and included the performance of Female Genital Mutilation as aggravated assault under section 268(3). Further, at least in Ontario, physicians are required to report any cases that they see. Additionally, Canada does recognize the threat of FGM as a valid reason for a refugee claim. These two actions may have caused the topic to 'drop off the radar', so to speak.

Other fronts that I have seen of late as a focus for 'pro-woman' campaigns have been on domestic violence, which is still alarmingly frequent here.

Maybe a case of 'cleaning up our own backyards first' ?

[Minionman]

...and it is not until around 30+, that many a person can understand that some things in life are absolutes. Also, a certain backround helps.

Oh and if you think that you will yank my chain with your barely veiled attempts to insult me, I'm sorry to dissapoint you. I have learned not to pay attention to ignorant, naive fools. Now, that's clear enough for you, right?
[right][snapback]80677[/snapback][/right]

It's fun arguing with a person who thinks they're tough.

It's also fun watching someone fal back on the "my backgroud is better than yours, so you'll never understand" argument so quickly. That sore looser way out of "You won't agree withme, so I'll find something to act superior about".

[Minionman]

I may also not be reading the right stuff to see the extent of the pro women's campaigns.  For example, 8 or 9 years ago, the genetic mutilation of young women in some African and Muslim lands was a huge cause celebre It seems to have slowly dropped off the radar. 
[right][snapback]80723[/snapback][/right]

It's still going, but just less loudly from what I've seen.


Edit: wierd quote tags.

[Occhidiangela]

Additionally, Canada does recognize the threat of FGM as a valid reason for a refugee claim. 

Maybe a case of 'cleaning up our own backyards first' ?
[right][snapback]80726[/snapback][/right]

How does one prove that threat? Sounds like a loophole to circumvent other immigration rules. Heart is in the right place, but having an out to Canada does not change the base women's rights issue of mutilation.

And as for point 2: always a good idea.

Occhi

[Ashock]

It's fun arguing with a person who thinks they're tough.   

It's also fun watching someone fal back on the "my backgroud is better than yours, so you'll never understand" argument so quickly.  That sore looser way out of "You won't agree withme, so I'll find something to act superior about".
[right][snapback]80739[/snapback][/right]

1) I was not arguing. I was simply stating a fact. For example: France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city, just to save their own skin. This is not an argument. It is a fact.

2) Do not underestimate the importance of someone's backround. For example, I would not presume to argue with Doc about the difficulties of growing up in the South(?) and being black in the 1860's...errr...1960's, or arguing with a woman about pains during labor. Also, I never said that it is the deciding factor, just a factor. Either learn to read, or learn to stop twisting what other people say.

3) Don't worry, be happy.



-A

[Doc]

1) I was not arguing. I was simply stating a fact. For example: France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city, just to save their own skin. This is not an argument. It is a fact.

2) Do not underestimate the importance of someone's backround. For example, I would not presume to argue with Doc about the difficulties of growing up in the South(?) and being black in the 1860's...errr...1960's, or arguing with a woman about pains during labor. Also, I never said that it is the deciding factor, just a factor. Either learn to read, or learn to stop twisting what other people say.

3) Don't worry, be happy.
-A
[right][snapback]80775[/snapback][/right]

And just to make sure this is clear, I am not black.

I am racially mixed however. I am clearly not white enough to make some folk happy.

[Occhidiangela]

And just to make sure this is clear, I am not black.

I am racially mixed however. I am clearly not white enough to make some folk happy.
[right][snapback]80776[/snapback][/right]

Neither, apparently, is Michael Jackson, but for completely different reasons. :P

Occhi