Malaysia imposes dress code for non-muslims, THE FRENCH WAY

And of course you are suggesting that western women wear bikinis ALL THE TIME, right ????????????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I never used the term GLOBALLY, I was arguing that revealing dress in the WEST is indeed a factor in SOME rape cases ( go back to my whole argument)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. I would like to suggest them to wear bikini ALL THE TIME but won't suggest that in this thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are joking now. good change in attitude, anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I might have missed your citation of actual research for clothing being a factor in rape. Could you please re-cite it?

Patterns of Behavior in Adolescent Rape_ by Vinogradov et al. in the
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 58(2) April 1988 pp 179-87:

71% of the rapists were under the influence of drugs (inc. alcohol).
15% reported taking drugs less than 15 minutes prior to the rape.
21% premeditated the rape.
27% committed the rape while committing another crime.
16% were impulsive/spontaneous, "the victim was simply an easy
available 'innocent bystander'".
7% were committed after an argument with the victim.
6% after sexual foreplay with the victim.
89% of the rapists described the victims as not being provocative,
"The victims did not verbally provoke nor were sexually
attractive to the attacker".

Yet the most common type of rape is an acquaintance rape (Koss & Harvey, 1991; World Bank, 1993). Acquaintance rape that involves some degree of relationship accounts for between 80% and 90% of rapes. In Koss, Gidycz, and Wisnewski's (1987) study of over 3000 college women, 84% of the reported sexual assaults were committed by persons known to the victim; 57% were dates.
Beliefs About the Causes of Four Types of Rape.
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, May, 2000, by Gloria Cowan


-I’m still looking for any empirical evidence to support the idea that dress is a factor in rape.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quote. You can't really compare these things to something like rape, which is universally agreed to be a bad thing.

I wan't comparing arranged marriages and polygamy to rape. I was referring to a prevaling attitude that when confronted wiyh lifestyles and practises different from our own there is a knee jerk reaction to label the practitioners as uneducated, anti-feminist, inhumane etc.

Quote:the finger should be pointed at the society or laws which condone the immoral behaviour.That last point is important. Making something legal does not make it moral. Laws should always be judged by whether they are morally right.There is actually a moral duty to disobey an immoral law. How do we decide what is moral or immoral? The only defensible way is through reason. Religion is authority-based, and authority is the very thing we're examining when we look at law. Reason is the deeper, more fundamental, level here.

What makes you think that a society will care about being shamed? Bush administration cares nothing about wagging fingers, anymore than the person throwing away their gum wrapper on the pavement. I agree that the laws and society should be challenged but I believe the responsibility is on the members of that society. Morality and what someone thinks is wrong or right is too subjective and not a good way of judging a law ie: How many people believe legalized abortion 'immoral'? Or divorce? Sexual liberties such as homosexuality? Morality and everything associated with it (religion) inteferes with reason. Morality is also morality based.

Quote:Jimmy's childhood cannot excuse Jimmy's violence, even if it partially explains it. Education may help Jimmy to recognise his propensity to take out his frustration in a violent manner. Of course, the normal reaction to domestic violence (if there is a reaction at all) is to simply lock Jimmy up in jail, where if he learns anything it will probably be how to be a better criminal. Maybe we should re-think our approach, don't you think?

I think that education only works for those who want it. Rehabilitation only works for those who are open to it. I am not interested in domestically or internationally wasting time and energy on those who are not actively struggling towards their own liberation in whatever way possible, and when they are I believe they should be supported in spirit and resources upon request, people know what they need outsiders rarely ever do. Stick Jimmy's ass in prison, but if the wife decides to take him back, bail him out, drop charges then that is her responsibility not the states responsibility less we begin creating a plethora of laws intervening in every area of life.

Quote:It is only where that dislike leads to an impingement on the freedom or rights of another person (such as a member of the disliked group) that we need to take action.

I agree. But we in a sense do have an ideological policing of thought and its called 'political correctness'. We also have 'hate' crimes which I find ridiculous. Crime is crime regardless of prejudice involved.

Quote:I think that's an extreme. But, if it comes to that, then I would certainly advocate overriding national sovereignty if it meant that the citizens of that nation get to live according to the standard of human rights they would wish to have were they given free choice in the matter.

Oh how Clockwork Orange of you! Think about what you are advocating. How can living in a globally policed world amount to freedom? No country will simply hand over their sovereignty and neither would a people. Look how many Iraqi's now see the U.S as an occupying force and not liberators. Why are you so willing to give so much power to institutions? How can overriding national sovereignty NOT be imperialistic in its very nature? Didn't communism begin with an ideal, a vision of equal distribution of wealth, end of suffering for the workin man? Didn't their plan also require the individual giving up his personal 'sovereignty' in favor of the state that would ensure their rights? Weren't the rights of many immediately laid waste? You dont want to discuss the free choice in Iran was back in '79 because you are not interested in freedom at all, what you are interested in is 'ideals'. Ideals are models not the way things are. And no model has ever been able to successfully change injustice in the world or the nature of our species. Ideals are best reached when implemented in the life of the individual but it is only the free individual who can choose those ideals and struggle towards them. Insisting or forcing others live up to your ideals is the antithesis of freedom. What you don't want to admit is that morality and rights are not and never will be universal. Overriding national sovereignty would lead to revolt: war, terrorism and freedom fighters. I have nothing but scorn for your globalist ideals under the guise of what is 'humane' because it is nothing but the paternalistic attitude of the West. If you really believe that the U.N is not a thin veil of imperialism then you are not paying attention to where is intervention occurs by whom and why. Do not be confused by those beauty pictures of diversity at the national assembly. Like I said there are only five nations on the permanent member list, the rest grace their presence for only two years. When people try and enforce their morality on me I dislike it, wouldn't you? Members of individual countries DO work towards change, why not leave them to do their work? Its the attitude of well WE were smart enough to drag ourselves out of the dark age but THEY are not, and THEY so badly need US to show them the way. I know some activists in their own countries who fear your ideas like they fear american bombs. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. I did some research on Michael Ignatieff Bells was so kind to provide and I came across this amazing quote: "truth is related to identity. What you believe to be true depends, in some measure, on who you believe yourself to be. And who you believe yourself to be is mostly defined in terms of who you are not" This is true of you but it is also true of others whom you have no kinship.

Quote:At least US citizens get a say at each election.

I dont see how that relates to my statement. But since its been brought up the majority of americans if I recall did not vote for this reigning emporer, he was appointed.

Quote:Such organisations already exist.

Yes but I suggest they exist alone. It is those belonging to a region and culture who are best suited to change it. Look at the later debate concerning methodology in cultural anthropology and ethnographies by outsiders?

Quote:I agree, but I would also like to see a more even distribution of wealth among nations. The world as a whole could easily end starvation globally if the will was there.

The report in my last post points out that 'food aid is temporary' and large multinational food corporations control much of the world's food trade (ask yourself where is the power base of those multinationals). Trying to control other countries especially through incompetent organizations (private org. and NGO's tend to work much more effectively) is counter-productive and allows people to erroneously believe the worlds problems are being solved when they are not. There isn't any org more wasteful and self-indulgent than the prestigious illustrious U.N. Its the cushiest paper pushing job in the world next to the EU. You wanna control hunger? Get the West and its financial concerns out of the worlds way. And how are you going to control distribution of wealth? Global communism?

 

Quote:If terms such as "educated" and "feminist" have any meaning at all (and I think they do) then chances are that some people are uneducated and anti-feminist. You only have to list feminist ideas and determine whether somebody agrees with them to give them a label one way or the other. That works only as long as everybody agrees which ideas are feminist ideas and which are not, of course. But movements such as feminism are well-enough defined these days to at least make categorisations at a low-resolution level. ("Defined by who?" you ask, "Western imperialists!" Well, in the case of feminism, largely, yes.)

These terms are used on occasion to belittle those we wish to change. Feminism is a western term for a western ideal, education is based on the demands of society and local environment. These terms do not have the same connotation for everyone. Even feminists do not agree, just look at the differences between Steinem, Dworkin and Paglia. What I had pointed out is that we do not describe a woman in utah who agrees to a polygamous marriage, people who choose to live under jewish religious law or a woman who runs back to a man who abuses her as being 'uneducated' or 'anti-feminist'. But we do to those who practise female circumcision and sharia law. Its a eurocentric, ethnocentric assumption.

Quote:I don't think that's quite true. Bush has his own set of beliefs and values which he strongly adheres to, and which his senior advisers largely share. He cares about some wagging fingers. It just depends on who is doing the wagging.

Really? Who does the bush administration respect? Who's finger wagging does he care about? His wifes? He was condmened for Kyoto and Iraq by the international community. He was met with demonstrators in London who dragged him down in effigy. He was booed by members of Australian parliment. France, Germany Russia and china all opposed him. If the administration doesn't care about finger wagging why should anyone else? You wrote that you agree education is only useful for those who want it and rehabilitation for those open to it, if this is the case then why do you suggest re-education for those who dismiss certain ideas? (the subject I believe was female circumcision and those who prefer to live under sharia law)

Quote:All laws are ultimately based around a core set of moral values. We can't avoid that. Morality doesn't interfere with reason - it is what allows us to make decisions based on the knowledge reason provides. We know how to build nuclear weapons, but only morality can tell us whether it is permissible to use them.

Morality does not tell us whether it is permissable to use them. If it did it would never have been used the first time (japan), I would go as far as to say it would never have been created. What determines their use is a desired end and retalitory considerations. If morality doesn't intefere with reason then explain those who kill abortion doctors under the banner of morality? Those who oppose abortion on moral grounds? Some believe its moral for a woman to remain a virgin until married. Some view the electric chair as a just and moral punishment. For some legalizing same sex marriage is moral and just, for others not. Laws are based on the principles held by the majority of a local community or nation-state. Principals are not universal, these core set of moral values are only core because they are your own. If not we deem them immoral.

Quote:We're back to labelling again. "Political correctness" is a label used by those who disagree with some types of aims, in an attempt to portray those aims as worthless. It is very convenient to label certain views as resulting from an over-application of political correctness, because it means you can often avoid actually justifying why you think the views themselves are wrong.

Who is labeling? You said there was no thought policing and i said that political correctness is an attempt to police thought and speech. Political correctness is not an attempt to portray an aim as worthless. Political correctness was a term used to describe avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. What the term turned into was censorship of or frowning on the expression of certain ideas by those who were not liberal or left. For example many blacks and whites are ashamed to admit that they think affirmative action wrong, less they be judged for their view. Its a way of silencing, a weird orwellian controlling mechanism used by the left.

Quote:Another label. In this case, I don't get your point. If a crime is motivated by hatred, then why not call it a "hate crime"?

So if I bash my lover over the head then I should call it a 'love crime'? Hate crime is a term used to describe biased crime and I think it is bullshit because it gives a stiffer penalty than the same crime without the word 'hate' attached to it. If I kill someone because he's gay or ethnic it is no worse than killing just because you dont like someone. If someone vandalizes a church or mosque it is no worse than vandalizing a Gap. Crime is crime.

Quote:I was referring to policing where the populace of a country is oppressed by a non-representative leadership. In that case, choosing global policing leads to freedom.

Doublespeak. Bush is non-representative leadership since he was appointed and the majority of votes went to another. Do you suggest another country overthrow this leadership? Global policing does not lead to freedom but a loss of freedom for all. Police states are not considered free states are they?

Quote:But countries do that all the time! Every international treaty gives up some sovereignty. And people do it too. They hand over power to a government, to whom they pay part of their income. In return, they get certain benefits (provided the system works properly).

They sign treaties WILLINGLY not through FORCE. And when they do they are still sovereign and can withdraw from the treaty when it no longer serves their interests. Just like a people can overthrow or vote out an existing government.

Quote: I don't see any harm, provided the institutions are truly representative. In fact, I see a lot of benefits. An institution full of experts can achieve much more than a disconnected set of individuals.

A group of individuals working together for a common purpose is not disconnected. The problem with the U.N is that it is not truly representative. It is the rule of a few powerful nations over weaker nations. How can only five nations in the security council represent the entire world?
You still fail to see that the world including the u.n is overpowered by one nation. As Mandela said in interview:

"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America."

"Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan"

Let us stop pretending that it is the U.N shaping the world when it is the U.S shaping and policing the world for their own purposes. If the american people are really concerned about peace and justice they should stop worrying about other countries and start worrying about their government that oppresses the world. I have no respect for bleeding heart americans because its always misplaced, instead of it pointing inwards they are always pointing outwards. Their own government creates chaos and then they blame this chaos on others and then pretend it is now time for them to do something about it. Hypocrisy.

Quote:Socialism would be great, if it worked. Unfortunately, it is extremely susceptible to corruption - much moreso than capitalism. It is an attempt to fight human nature, as opposed to recognising it for what it is. Was it Churchill who said something like "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the other types"?

Everything looks great on paper. But you still didn't address my point regarding ideals and what happens to those ideals when implemented by governments (including global government) and not by the individual. Only the individual can work towards an ideal.

Quote:No, they are the way things could be. Freedom itself is an ideal, sometimes achieved in part.

Freedom also includes the choice not to be free. To take that choice away is the antithesis of freedom which is why I referred to Clockwork Orange.

Quote:Here's where our major disagreement lies, I think. Indeed, I do argue that some moral ideas are essentially universal, at least in the human species. Rights which are based around those ideas ought also to be universal.Examples of these basic rights would include rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, provided that these do not infringe on the same rights of others. If you want to get more specific, I would probably start by looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I know the document. If these moral ideas are universal to the human species then why do you have to convince people of them? Eating, shitting and dying are universal but what we eat, where and how we clean our asses after we shit, and what we think happens upon death is not. If these moral values were essentially universal to the species then there would be no need to write it down and speak of re-educating others on what those ideas are.
You say:Examples of these basic rights would include rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, provided that these do not infringe on the same rights of others. In the United States the patriot act allows for people to be held without charges and representation for an indefinite length of time. Americans allow their own government to shit on their own principles and then have the audacity to claim the moral high ground in regards to others. Its a hypocrisy.

Quote:'m not advocating the use of force to enforce the kinds of rights I've mentioned - or at least not in the sense of invading an entire nation and trying to force them to obey a particular ideology. I am advocating the free dissemination of ideas about these rights to all nations. Only as a last resort, where a people is being denied these fundamental rights by an oppressive minority, should force be considered as a possible solution.

So you assume that the Chinese do not know about capitalism and women in Iran know nothing of feminism, and women in Gambia don't know that other women around the world do not circumcise their daughters. James these people know about these ideas, some want them and others do not. Give me an example of a country that needs regime change because the majority is being repressed by a minority? So then you would agree that South Africa and the former nation known as palestine should have been forcibly intervened upon?

Quote:Wrong. All I am asking is that people be given the freedom to make truly informed choices about the way they live. And I am seeking to protect the weak against oppressors, when that is what they want.

But we all make that choice, what you don't want to admit is that there are many who actively choose what you wouldn't. What informs us are the ideas produced by our respective cultures or society. If you want to protect the weak against oppressors again control western government ie. USA. Or the british when they created Iraq and gave power to the sunni minority over the shiite majority.

Quote:Most nations of the world are members of the United Nations. Most are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which indicates that they wish to endorse certain rights by agreement, even if, in practice, their implementation of those rights locally is far from perfect. This is not enforced morality, but morality by choice. The UN is by nature an idealistic organisation. With its current powers it can be nothing else. With your apparent disdain for idealism, perhaps that is why you dislike it so much.

You are right I do dislike idealism. Oxford dictionary describes the word as: the practise of forming or following after ideals esp. unrealistically. I believe in taking a realistic look at the world and using realistic methods.
What kind of ideals are these that are so difficult to adhere to and implement? There is no strength in them. Look at what Mandela has to say about the institution he himself endorses when asked about the inherent racism of the U.N:

"Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white. Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don't have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn't find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you've had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people."

The flaws or bias of the institutions simply mirror the flaws and bias of the individuals who created them. The power structure of the world is apparent in the power structure of the U.N. I say it should disband since it can never have any power anyway and stop all the hypocrisy and complete waste of money. Maybe then each region of the world can concentrate on their own problems and find solidarity among themselves and bind together against american manipulation.

Quote:That's a great quote. I'll have to read the links. I do not believe, though, that therefore all views are equally valid. People are not islands, but must interact with other people. Therefore, it is not permissible for you to be what your whim dictates if it inteferes unduly with my right to be what my whim dictates. An individual's freedom is always constrained by his duties to others.The major freedoms I have been talking about all relate to the degree of control that one person can have over themselves and others.

Re-read that quote again. Since when is identity a whim? Our views are products of our identity, our identity is created by our culture/environment/society. Who is to say what point of view is valid? A point of view is superior to another only because its our point of view. If people are to interact there has to be respect for each others differing points of view and general differences. You say, "an individuals freedom is always contrained by his duties to others", well guess what those overseas have no duty towards your ideals and the ideals you practise in your community. What duties we have towards another is also ENTIRELY subjective! This last statement of yours: "The major freedoms I have been talking about all relate to the degree of control that one person can have over themselves and others." Sometimes people choose to not control themselves. What control over others are you refering to?

 

Lucysnow:
I agree to an extent, but if cutting off a child's clitoris and labia isn't anti-feminist, what is?
There's a tremendous difference between a woman choosing to marry a man who has five wives and mutilating a helpless child. The latter is just - absolutely unjustifiable and anyone practicing something like that ought to be tortured to death.

Otherwise I agree - set your own house in order before trying to re-arrange your neighbor's lawn. We invade Iraq for its oil, and we claim to have liberated them? Nonsense.

 

Well the point is that feminism itself is not a universal principle that all women accept. Female circumcision is a culturally biased practise and I can understand why you don't like the idea of it. I don't like the idea of it, but then again I don't know if i would want my baby son to have his foreskin torn off. The question is what to be done when an entire society agrees with the practise. We can disagree with it but nothing will happen until the majority of women in those cultures decide to actively revolutionize their own society. Do you know why they do it? Its done so the woman cannot have an orgasm. They believe that if a woman doesn't feel too much pleasure she will not become 'oversexed' and seek out many men. The problem is often that in these villages it is not done by a medical doctor but the women who sometimes use blunt knives and cause infection and damage. Sometimes the girl then forever has painful sex or difficulty delivering. Worse of all of course (even if there are no complications) is the trauma. At the age of seven and without anesthesia the incident is really intense.

 

I'm still waiting for the international Muslim community to condemn this dress code as imperialistic, intolerant, "racist" against non-Muslims, etc...

Why aren't they?

Could it be that many Muslims don't care about religious and cultural freedom except when their own may be at stake?

 

…because in Malaysia it was condemned by everyone (Muslim included) except PAS. I found that western media did not make the difference between a state of Malaysia and the whole of Malaysia.

Its politics I tell you  It should be understood that Malay’s are by default Muslim. They can ‘opt out’ but they then lose their monetary, political and career benefits. A Malaysia company has to be owned 51% by Malays, Malays have be the major composition of the work force, university classes, they get better loan rates, and cheaper housing. However Malays do not constitute 51% of the country. They count indigenous groups as Malay to boosted their rating. In Sarawak and Sabah the indigenous tribes account for around fifty percent of the population.

Interestingly its not the idea of a state dress code, but the enforcement of Sharia on non-Muslims which is at the heart of this. As a side note, I wonder if I got the death sentence in Texas I could plead non-Texan.

 

Quote:The particular things you mention here are very different from one another. In the case of polygamous marriage, I find it very difficult to identify specific harm to the woman, provided she agrees to it. On the other hand, in the case of genital mutilation, the harm is blatantly obvious. You don't even have to judge these things according to a feminist perspective to make up your mind about whether they are moral or not. A judgment in the case of female circumcision can rest on the fundamental right to control of one's own body.

If the question of morality concerning circumcison were blatant then it wouldn't happen at all. My point concerning female circumcision and polygamy hasn't anything to do with whether there is harm involved but how relative the judgement concerning them. How these practises are judged will differ from society to society. No right is fundamental. They are wrong to YOU.

"6 Feb. 1997 (Daily Telegraph): EIGHT Egyptian women out of 10 consider female circumcision to be a good tradition, according to a study by the official National Population Council. It shows...97 per cent of 14,779 married women aged between 15 and 49 polled had undergone the operation - a procedure which was banned last year in public hospitals by the Egyptian Health Ministry." http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/150.html

Quote:Because there is a moral duty to do the right thing, and some people (US citizens) have the power to change their government.

Well they are not doing a very good job of it.

Quote:It is very hard to know in advance whether education will "take" in a particular person or not. The point is to give them the opportunity to learn. Then, all you can do is sit back and see what happens.

You sound like a missionary. You cannot educate anyone at all if they are not open, willing and most of all trusting. Point being that if a country, society or people do not open their doors to you it doesn't make a difference what you think is right or wrong for them. You'll have a better chance of staying dry by pissing in the wind.

Quote

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

esired ends always determine actions. Some ends are moral; others are amoral. People do not always act morally, obviously. Morality is all about "ought", not "is".

Right, which is why I say that the only 'moral' ground for using the bomb was 'the save our ass morality'. Morality is a set of standard whereby you judge someone or yourself good or bad. You make the mistake of projecting your sense of morality on others, people who have a different set of standards. Its one thing to live by them yourself and another to advocate them others who do not concern you and are not interested in your morality...it makes you an evangelist.

Quote: Those people are effectively insane. On the one hand, they oppose abortion, supposedly out of respect for human life. Then, in the next breath, they take human life. The hypocrisy is blatant.

There is no proof of insanity only of belief. The moral reasoning they use is the same kind of 'moral' reasoning you used concerning the bomb, justifying something heinous on 'moral' grounds, and that is killing in the interest of saving more life. Those who kill abortion doctors believe that they are in a war to save unborn babies and that they are killing someone who will potentially kill more of the unborn. And yes, "The hypocrisy is blatant".

Quote:There are valid moral arguments against abortion. That's why it is such a difficult and contentious issue. It's one of those grey areas.

Its not grey at all. If a woman wants an abortion then it is good and if she doesn't then the idea is bad. Its one of those win-win situations.

Quote:incest between mother and son is wrong;
rape is wrong;actions which hurt collective public institutions are wrong;certain types of speech are frowned apon;certain forms of violence are wrong;morals have limited applicability to cultures different from one's own.
(The last one is particularly interesting, don't you think? For example, violence against "others" from outside one's culture is often considered to be more acceptable than violence against others in one's own culture.)

The question is not what is 'wrong' but what is law. So in the first example incest may be frowned upon by all but it is not necessarily illegal and if it is will differ from society to society. Every example you gave is relative to place and circumstance. None of them are 'wrong' per se, these ideas that you say are universal are NOT universal. If they were then Hindus would not have torn down the 'collective public institution' in Ayhodya brick by brick (in that circumstance it was only 'wrong' to the muslim community, the former thought it their moral right and duty). Certian types of speech may be frowned upon but it doesn't stop people from using expletives. In some places these expletives are more accepted than in others (NYC is one place where expletives are not considered 'wrong'). Blacks use the word 'nigger' all the time and it is not considered 'wrong' but it is 'wrong' when a white person uses it (then its called a racial slur). What form of violence is wrong? Killing 350,000 people in an 'end the war effort'? (more like save our ass effort) or circucising a child? death penalty?
Abortion? All relative.

Quote:No. What happens is this:
1. A good moral argument is given for proscribing certain behaviour.
2. People who want to engage in that behaviour attempt to justify it by saying that there is actually no good reason for proscribing the behaviour. Rather, they say, the proscription is just for "political correctness", for no good reason. Note, that by labelling the proscription as "political correctness", they avoid having to counter the moral argument.

Rubbish! The judgement is not necessarily a good moral argument against behaviour unless you are the one touting it. There is no viable 'moral' argument unless you are arguing with someone who has the same set of moral standards. So no I don't see. Political correctness is an attempt to control the speech of another, it amounts 'you can't say that. A ridiculous notion that if it is not said it wont be thought or acted upon.

Quote:No. What it turned into was a cover (often for the political right) which avoids having to justify one's immoral actions.

To whom do they have to justify themselves? If an act is not illegal then there is no need for justification. That's what I mean by thought policing, the idea that one must justify thought and speech. Its nonsense.

Quote:They wouldn't be ashamed if they had any good arguments, would they? Their arguments would speak for themselves.

And they do have a valid argument which is why those against affirmative action is being voiced more and more, louder and louder by both blacks and whites. Its the 'we don't need lower standards, special treatment or hand-outs' argument.

Quote:No. There are basic duties we have to each other. For example, we ought not interfere with another person's liberty without very a very good moral rationale.

I would agree with your last sentence but I am sure there are others who do not agree. The first? Well what are those basic duties/

My Quote:You say, "an individuals freedom is always contrained by his duties to others", well guess what those overseas have no duty towards your ideals and the ideals you practise in your community.

Your response: Yes, they do.

What are you a self-proclaimed monarch now? Your arrogance is astounding and truly disturbing because you do not see that this is 'interfering with another person's liberty'. You are confused. Probably dangerous. (takes handgun and holds it at her side) YOu are philosophically no more 'reasonable' than a hard-core pro lifer...and hardly moral only controlling.

Quote:No. A point a view is valid because it is defensible with reason. Some point of view are completely invalid, because there is no logical basis on which they can be defended.

Some society's do not function on 'reason' but religion. That is just the way it is. Just because you determine a point of view valid on those grounds doesn't mean diddly to a majority of people in the world. Get use to it or better yet throw your energy back into your own society/culture where it is needed.

Quote:And (importantly) genetic heritage. We're not blank slates when we're born.

If that's the case then why did you refer to identity as a 'whim'? You say you didn't say that but that is how it reads to me. If not then please re-read your statment and clarify.

Quote:The US is not the greatest evil ever - a fact for which we should be very greatful.

It doesn't have to be the greatest evil ever and I never said it was. That does not absolve it of its evils.

Quote:True to an extent. But you were arguing for being realistic a minute ago, weren't you?

Exactly thats why I say it should disband. 50 years and they are still failing.

Quote:It is always hard to put the interests of others above your own interests. That is part of human nature. I totally agree that we should be realistic in what we expect from human nature, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have higher aims as goals. I don't believe we should simply throw up our hands and say "This is the way things will always be - we'll just have to get used to it!"

Our aims and goals should focus on ourselves and our communities. We should allow others to have their own aims and goals. Now if their aims and goals are focused towards interferring with our own then you fight back, but otherwise no.

My quote:So then you would agree that South Africa and the former nation known as palestine should have been forcibly intervened upon?

Your response: No.

And why not? You advocate regime change in instances where a 'majority' are being oppressed by a 'minority'.

Quote: There's very little doubt that the Chinese know about capitalism. They are embracing it more and more all the time. Some women in Iran and Gambia know about the things you mentioned, but many do not.

Quote: You obviously don't know anything about the 'golden age' of pre-communist China before the war with Japan when private enterprise in urban and rural areas was the norm and very, very capitalistic. As far as what women and circumcision I would suggest you ask yourself why there are some women still practising this while living in the West or is it that you think they haven't gotten the message either, and perhaps reading a little something from Nigerian born Aima Ata Aidoo and her criticisms of the Wests interpretation of the custom:

http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/wom015_fgm_europe2.htm

Quote:I don't think it's "Americans" you're thinking of here, but the current administration. In that case, I totally agree with you.

Yes it is. A government 'for the people by the people'. In short americans supposedly engage in participatory government, they can't simply take responsibility for what is 'good' and then suddenly absolve themselves of responsibility on matters that are embarrasing. I would make the same accusation concerning matters like female circumcision. We are each responsible for the government and society we live and take part in.

Quote:You don't have to convince people of these core values. They know. Unfortunately, people tend to be selfish. They do not always do the right thing when doing the wrong thing can lead to a greater benefit for them as individuals.

That is simply wishful thinking on your part. Your problem is that you believe people are inherently 'good' and naturally 'moral' and I am saying that neither is true. If people tend to be 'selfish' and act on that 'selfishness' then by your own argument these core values are not even normal. I don't believe that people are inherently 'bad' or 'good' to use your terms they are simply human (something far more complex).

Quote:Nobody chooses not to be free, unless they make a net gain by doing so. And then, it could be argued that they are still free, since they made the choice.

People choose not to be free all the time because it demands too much responsibility. People choose not to be free of religion/tradition. People willingly follow their dictators. Women choose to remain in abusive relationships with tryrants. Some people choose to be modern day slaves (contract and all).

Quote:Governments are not monolithic entities. When it comes down to it, they are made up of people just like you and me. In fact, they can be you and me, if we puts our minds to it - at least in a democracy. Far too many people whinge about their government and never lift a finger to try to change what it is they don't like. Look at the voter turnout in the US, for example

Thank you. That's my whole point.

Quote:Not necessary. The American people can do that themselves in November.

Yea but will they? Or will they just put Bush in for safety? You know terrorism and all that bruhaha.

Quote:But does it, in fact, lead to stiffer penalties? Do you have any statistics on that?

Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act/1994
"Congress enacted a federal complement to state hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes in the 1994 crime bill. This provision required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This measure applies, inter alia, to attacks and vandalism which occur in national parks and on federal property.In May, 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission announced its implementation of a three-level sentencing guidelines increase for hate crimes, as directed by Congress. This amendment took effect on November 1, 1995."

 

Quote:Interestingly its not the idea of a state dress code, but the enforcement of Sharia on non-Muslims which is at the heart of this. As a side note, I wonder if I got the death sentence in Texas I could plead non-Texan.

But the article stated that the now defunct proposal was focused on non-muslims working in muslim communities and that the law would only affect muslim communitites. As far as the side-note...hell no, maybe if you are foreign and there are extradition privileges they will send you back to your country. Actually now they have a law stating that if you commit a felony they automatically return you back to your country after you have served your sentence in the States.

 

Lucy Lucy Lucy!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can make the same argument for genital mutilation...For god sake, males are all mutilated during circumsicion and we rarely call that an anti-maleist act.

And while I can understand your feminist side quite well, I can barely swallow up your "cultures are great and different, don't try to change them" act. Polygamous marraige is NOT something that a woman chooses to do or something that a woman initiates. It's a society dictated way of being. In societies where single women, widows, divorced, are looked down at as if they were some sub class citizens, a polygamous marriage becomes the only resort for many women who NEEDS a man just because the society/culture says so.

Just like the society looks at a nonmutilated female down, the culture looks at the unmarried woman down. It's the same exact thing, and not different as you are trying to push forward. The same traditions that you are trying to do a balancing act to support, are the ones feeding all these troubles..DIE HARD TRADITIONS.

 

You only cite Western sources, where are the islamic ones? They would say that an un-burkahed female is more provocative than any muslim man can stand, poor fellows, they are Pavlov's dogs, pun intended

 

that's institutional racism, ethnocentrism at it's core

for not wearing a cowboy hat? shucks, you'll look like some damm yankee or tourist, that's all.

 

could be that only male muslims are considered fully humans under islamic laws, all others are 2 & 3rd class humans, welcome to dhimmitude dude, your future under islam, after world domination jihad.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.DHIMMI.html
http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm

 

Quote:I can make the same argument for genital mutilation...For god sake, males are all mutilated during circumsicion and we rarely call that an anti-maleist act.
And while I can understand your feminist side quite well, I can barely swallow up your "cultures are great and different, don't try to change them" act. Polygamous marraige is NOT something that a woman chooses to do or something that a woman initiates. It's a society dictated way of being. In societies where single women, widows, divorced, are looked down at as if they were some sub class citizens, a polygamous marriage becomes the only resort for many women who NEEDS a man just because the society/culture says so.Just like the society looks at a nonmutilated female down, the culture looks at the unmarried woman down. It's the same exact thing, and not different as you are trying to push forward. The same traditions that you are trying to do a balancing


Flores you are suffering from a reading comprehension problem. First the quote you pasted belongs to James. I have already pointed out that male circumcision is widely accepted without all the bruhaha. Third polygamy is practised by Mormons in Utah and the women do CHOOSE of their own FREE will to enter such unions (and that was what I was referring to). Forth I never said anything about ' cultures are great and different'. I am indicating that cultures ARE different and that an outsider cannot forcibly change it, it must be revolutionized by the culture itself. All the rest you are going on about has nothing to do with my post, so I suggest you go back a few pages and start from the beginning of my back and forth with James and then maybe you will have a clue as to my position and in what context FGM and Polygamy were introduced.

Here is my response to the quote you pasted belonging to James:

"If the question of morality concerning circumcison were blatant then it wouldn't happen at all. My point concerning female circumcision and polygamy hasn't anything to do with whether there is harm involved but how relative the judgement concerning the them. How these practises are judged will differ from society to society. No right is fundamental. They are wrong to YOU."

I am not building a case for or against these practises. What I am saying is the notion of foreign intervention is unnecessary and sometimes unwelcome. The proposal in Malaysia was withdrawn without any 'foreign' influence and there are ample female activists from countries that practise FMG who are workng within their own societies. I say let these people revolutionize it for themselves. The idea that one must DO this for them is euro-ethnocentric patronization.

 

Quote:Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all members of a NY gang hold the opinion that a person is honor-bound to kill any member of another gang who insults a member of his family or gang. I wonder, Lucysnow, if you would advocate any action to interfere with killings which result from this belief? After all, who are you to judge gang culture, which is different from your own?If you want to go down the path of cultural relativism, why stop at country borders? To be consistent, you need to accept that you can't impose your moral views on anybody but yourself, because ultimately you differ in some ways from all other people. But then, you can't make any impact on the world at all, can you?

Great question! I live in a multi-cultural society. Now if I were living in a neighborhood where gang violence is prevalent then it is my DUTY to work with others on a grass-roots level to change it. There are a many ways to do this. Reach out to local representatives/police. Engage concerned members of the community in discussing and brainstorming the issue. Work behind the issues creating the gangs in the first place. Engage in community/gang members dialogue (as gang members are also part of the community). If this is not my community problem, which it isn't, then I am less likely to get involved. I get involved with other issues like the homeless for example (through service), or volunteer my time at Indymedia, work with grass-root groups who work on a variety of local issues. The time I place into such efforts has a direct effect on my neighborhood and city. Here is what I don't do: I don't travel out of my way to go into the Bronx and wag my finger saying 'You have had three children murdered in the past two weeks due to gang violence. Why don't you do something?' etc. etc.
Now if an organization in the Bronx was working on this issue and needed help/resources and reached out to a grass-roots org in my neighborhood then I would offer what time or aid I had available if I so choose to spend my time that way (like if they asked others to join in demonstration for example). When the homosexual community in Manhattan were in crises over AIDS they were the first to become active precisely because they were dying. They were instrumental in raising consciousness about the disease. They didn't sit around waiting for anyone to solve this problem or show concern for their problem. If I felt passionate about AIDS because I realize that it doesn't simply affect their community, then I would join in solidarity. I am not about to go down to Texas and complain about some local issue that is not my concern because I will never be affected by it and do not contribute to their community. I have done activist work abroad, often as part of an internship etc for college. Those situations were dramatically different. I had to realize and understand that the differences in culture/politics/society were so drastic that I had to shut my mouth and take direction from those who were already engaged in the process, and only to the degree they saw fit. I learned to respect the differences in perception between western and local organizers or activists. They knew best, sometimes a western attitude or method only served to make matters worse.