OK, then. Let your enemies blind and beat you. After all, if you don't defend yourself, I'm sure they'll stop. Humans are thoughtful like that.
We have proposed retaliating and not retaliating. I am sure other options are possible, but I choose retaliating. What do you suggest?
Defend ourselves against foreign and domestic terrorism as needed. Use our justice system to find and punish criminals. Make it clear that we'll welcome almost anyone, but if you commit serious crimes here you always get caught - and then go to jail for the rest of your life. No retaliation needed.
Kindness ought to be to everyone, including oneself. To discourage being attacked, model not attacking. Revenge and self-defense aren't the same thing.
Wondering about the solution? You kidding me? Simple, let the barbarians be barbarians in their own lands, do honest business with them but leave their cultures alone. Oh, and DEFINITELY don't send your armies to their lands, they might mistake it as an act of war.
And for God's sake, don't remove genocidal dictators, promote democracy or freedom of speech, defend woman's rights, or assist our allies, they might mistake it as a war against Islam. After all, these simple minded people have no sense of complexity, everything is black or white.
Geoff, once I had slept some, it occurred to me that Gandhi was probably including figure of speech in his famous statement. The blindness could include an implied moral type.
Isreal is genocidal and is supported, not removed. Syria anyone? Many countries don't want democracy, like I'd believe Iran and Saudi Arabia. Minorities in those countries do, but they're outcast even by their own countries. Hamas was democratically elected in Palestine. the US was sure proud and supportive of them. Some countries aren't ready for flash-democracy, look how Egypt is stumbling now. Speech to be protected is subjective. Canada and the UK protect hate speech(I'm not sure about the UK), the US doesn't. The US doesn't include obscenity in protected free speech, I'm sure other countries do. You are simply advocating sending troops to countries to subjugate them to your standards derived from your culture. And want them to be happy for it. Largely cultural and changes from society to society. Who must be right because they're your allies. Check Isreal above. Shouldn't it be? After all, these simple minded people have no sense of complexity, everything is black or white.[/QUOTE] Idk what you mean :shrug:. But: Americans, educate and surprise yourselves, then stop trying to "save" others.
But in this instance, it does not change from society to society where the predominant religion is Islam. Because Muslims in Indonesia do not share the same culture as those in Afghanistan, for example. And yet, both say that women should obey their husbands. So it isn't cultural. Unless of course you are going to argue that Islam is a culture. From the survey you cited: And when you look at the majorities that want Sharia Law implemented, one would safely say that the "cultural" aspect of women's rights stems from their religious beliefs and ideology.
Dafuq? ...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mere astonishment at the enormity of happenstance. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please let me dissuade you not.
What? That religions are bad for women's rights? How could you possibly dissuade me from that? We see the same in all countries where religion is predominant within the society. Women's health and rights to reproductive health care, in the US, for example, stems from the religious beliefs of lawmakers. And so on and so forth. But to claim, in this instance, that women's rights are different with each culture, and then cite countries like Indonesia and Afghanistan as examples. Indonesia's culture is nothing like Afghanistan's. Nothing at all. Women actually have rights there (they had a female President, for goodness sake). And yet, in both countries, Muslims surveyed stated that women should obey their husbands. That is not "cultural". That stems from a religious belief. To try and call it anything else is bizarre. I am sure if similar surveys were conducted in countries where Christian religions were predominant, for example, the results could be just as interesting in a disturbing way. I mean hell, some are trying to push the 'obey the husband' line as being liberating for women.
Geoff's Devil, and Other Notes Geoff's Devil, and Other Notes "Garterbelt, can you dial D City two nine-hundred? Answer line: Copy that, cleared the city." —Panty & Stocking It's a result of his happy straw man, kind of like Chuck's Devil. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Chuck to the Future": Fastener, Chuck, Chuck's Devil, and the sad fate of Chuck and his Devil. See, "Geoff's Devil"—such as it is—seems to view things differently than you or I. For me, at least, it seems apparent that when you lay one behavioral template, such as religion, over another, such as a cultural heritage, the result cannot be expected to represent one or the other purely. One analogy would be to go watch the film version of At Play in the Fields of the Lord, and during the scene in which Kathy Bates fits a bunch of indigenous girls with brassieres, watch the girls' fascination and then complain that Christians like their women to run around in their underwear. Similarly, would be say that alcoholism, domestic violence, and sexual violence on American tribal reservations is representative of Christianity? No, of course we wouldn't; it is an outcome that we now know to predict when you lay obsolete religion over a foreign, ancient culture, and demand civilization. In the end, the effects of these differing approaches bring predictably different results. A perspective rooted in considerations of human behavior will identify diverse factors and attempt to account for their effects. A perspective rooted in politics will simply demand a monolithic outlook and hope reality cooperates. And it's not just Geoff. This is a common trope in human societies, and is the reason many people cannot separate disdain for what takes place in a culture from open hatred of the people within that culture. To wit, Islam doesn't help women's rights in the modern context, but the behavioral routines were devised a long, long time ago. If we expect results from the Islamic world that conform to our expectations of civilized society, then we must necessarily account for the different factors affecting the paradigm. History demonstrates this sort of transition; while some Christians, indeed, are pushing for a medieval outcome, it's fair to say that the vast majority of identifying Christians in our societies are simply apostate. That is, when American Christians, for instance, complain that our culture is losing its traditional values, well, yeah, they're right. But, then again, this is also the society they made. In the time when we still had witch trials, American Christians were abandoning Christ's Apostles in order to fight "communism". Even today, if you put the leftist motto of "from each to each" in front of American Christians, a majority—perhaps vast—would reject it, at least until you showed them the fourth chapter of Acts. (And, yes, some would still reject it.) In the U.S., this is why evangelicals focus on such insane issues. The "Christian" America they want back is, in terms of the dialectic of neurosis, sinister and detrimental. What separates the wishful tyranny of American Christendom from, say, the applicable tyranny in many Islamic nations is, mainly, affluence. American "Christians" will behave in a most un-Christian manner if they feel circumstances demand. Much like the terrorists, our political evangelicals have forsaken their faith in order to presume for themselves the authority otherwise reserved to God. As I noted earlier in the thread, "We aren't doing to ourselves what we've seen done in Sarajevo and Grozny. We've done it before, and we do not intend to ever do so again." But if we reject the behavioral in order to focus on the political, the syllogism changes; no other factors matter except for the identity label. Poverty, education, the effects of geopolitics—none of it matters to the political outlook that demands the subject be represented monolithically. Which brings us back to Geoff, or his "Devil", as such. Since the myriad factors affecting your assessment of "Islam" do not exist in his outlook, we ought not be surprised that he is surprised. He offers us very simplistic views of history and human behavior. Much like we see in the current rape thread, in which various players are unable to comprehend the arguments they're attempting to respond to, and thus fixed on straw men, so it seems with Geoff's understanding of how you view religion in general and Islam in specific. Or, in short, you criticized Islam, which I don't think he thought was possible. You know, kind of like that discussion about crime prevention where some people are ignoring considerations of crime prevention tactics in order to complain that people are ignoring crime prevention tactics. We must at least acknowledge the possibility that the blindness is not willful, but, rather, neurotic.
As I said, don't let me dissuade you from this catharsis. And I have no doubt that the oppressors of women would take up precisely such a line: it is not for nothing we read Orwell.
Mmmm - not so much. But anyway. Oh, Ti-ti: and you were doing so well up this point. Tsk. Op - getting closer. Good! Pooossibly. Doesn't help much with explaining the attitudes of the impoverished people of Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, but I think reality felt the splash of that shell. Oh dear. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Another D minus..." But do go on. Watching you wrestle with your binky is almost as amusing as the turn of this thread: for example, I've never seen anyone propose two straw men in the same post. Will new heights of dialectical intercourse be achieved? (Heh.)
Looks like islamic missile technology meant for use in attacks on the jewish dietary law that forbids under any circumstances the consumption of pork that flies.
