|
On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said. Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said. It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is.
Right, a ridiculous interpretation of what he said.
He said:
There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it.
He said the husband has sex with her even if she does not consent. That's what he said. Where the fuck did you get "wife doesn't want sex but does it anyway"? Nowhere. You pulled it out of your ass, trying to nitpick and derail.
|
On July 28 2013 05:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said. Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said. It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is. Right, a ridiculous interpretation of what he said. He said: Show nested quote +There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. He said the husband has sex with her even if she does not consent. That's what he said. Where the fuck did you get "wife doesn't want sex but does it anyway"? Nowhere. You pulled it out of your ass, trying to nitpick and derail.
That is not what he said I think. It's odd that you accuse me of misrepresenting what he said when you are actually the one doing it, and the quote is right there. He said women arguing that a wife's body belongs to her husband so the husband taking his "rights" is not rape is nonsense. From her own internal perspective, it is not. The idea of not giving consent to her husband is impossible to her.
I am saying that his saying "she does not consent" is false. I'm saying the situation he posits is actually impossible. It contradicts itself.
If a woman is arguing that other women have to do that, then he is absolutely right as that is presumptuous and horrible and if that is the full extent and limit of what he said then I read what he wrote wrong and I am wrong. If that is the case then I made a good-faith mistake reading not carefully enough and I apologize. But I assume that a woman arguing that practices what she preaches, and in her case she would not be withholding consent.
Yes I am nitpicking because kwark needs to be nitpicked to keep him at least within a mile or two of the ground.
|
On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right.
|
On July 28 2013 06:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:54 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said. Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said. It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is. Right, a ridiculous interpretation of what he said. He said: There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. He said the husband has sex with her even if she does not consent. That's what he said. Where the fuck did you get "wife doesn't want sex but does it anyway"? Nowhere. You pulled it out of your ass, trying to nitpick and derail. That is not what he said I think. It's odd that you accuse me of misrepresenting what he said when you are actually the one doing it, and the quote is right there. He said women arguing that a woman's body belongs to her husband so the husband taking his "rights" is not rape. I am saying that his saying "she does not consent" is false. I'm saying the situation he posits is actually impossible. It contradicts itself. If a woman is arguing that other women have to do that, then he is absolutely right and if that is the full extent and limit of what he said then I read what he wrote wrong and I am wrong. If that is the case then I made a good-faith mistake reading not carefully enough and I apologize. But I presume that a woman arguing that practices what she preaches, and in her case she would not be withholding consent. Yes I am nitpicking because kwark needs to be nitpicked to keep him at least within a mile or two of the ground.
Yes, he is talking about women who argue against marital rape laws. It's not hard to find misogynistic women.
|
On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right.
Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right."
|
On July 28 2013 06:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 05:54 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said. Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said. It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is. Right, a ridiculous interpretation of what he said. He said: There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. He said the husband has sex with her even if she does not consent. That's what he said. Where the fuck did you get "wife doesn't want sex but does it anyway"? Nowhere. You pulled it out of your ass, trying to nitpick and derail. That is not what he said I think. It's odd that you accuse me of misrepresenting what he said when you are actually the one doing it, and the quote is right there. He said women arguing that a woman's body belongs to her husband so the husband taking his "rights" is not rape. I am saying that his saying "she does not consent" is false. I'm saying the situation he posits is actually impossible. It contradicts itself. If a woman is arguing that other women have to do that, then he is absolutely right and if that is the full extent and limit of what he said then I read what he wrote wrong and I am wrong. If that is the case then I made a good-faith mistake reading not carefully enough and I apologize. But I presume that a woman arguing that practices what she preaches, and in her case she would not be withholding consent. Yes I am nitpicking because kwark needs to be nitpicked to keep him at least within a mile or two of the ground. Yes, he is talking about women who argue against marital rape laws. He is saying that misogynistic women are not at all hard to find.
I thought he meant that in all cases it would be marital rape even though in the case of women who argue that it would not be, which he did not mean, so I was wrong. Obviously misogynistic women are not at all hard to find  a lot of young and old women in particular hold misogynistic attitudes (except against themselves... and the old ones usually think that they themselves are also vipers or some shit). In young women sexual competition is the cause I would guess, and in old women it's the nonsense put in their heads as children.
|
On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right. Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right."
Sarcasm and cynicism are unnecessary. Change can come about, though admittedly it has to come from within the culture, not outside regulation:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/talking-female-circumcision-out-of-existence/
|
On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
Is that so hard to grasp? You try to change it through legislation and education.
Atleast it's better than your position of; Meh, can't be bothered. It's their culture, let's look the other way and plug our ears to millions of mutilations and thousands of deaths.
|
On July 28 2013 05:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:49 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 05:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy.
[quote]
ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught? Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra. There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. That doesn't make it less rape. You're using consent wrong. That's not marital rape. Not wanting to but doing it anyway without compulsion is giving consent. It may be stupid and wrong in your eyes but it is not withholding consent. Not wanting to and your husband threatens you for not doing your wifely duties (or whatever) or physically overpowers you would be no consent and thus rape. "I don't want to but I'll do it anyway" is consent. "I don't want to and I won't" and then being compelled to through threats or violence is not consent. You're using consent wrong. If you don't want to do it, you're not giving consent. How is that hard to mix up? If you don't want to do it and do it anyway with no one but you making the decision, how are you not giving consent? How is that hard to mix up? Consent is a personal issue. No consent takes two to tango. If my girlfriend asks me to go to the store to pick up tampons and I don't want to but I decide to do it anyway because she's my girlfriend and I feel an obligation to do what she asks, am I going to buy tampons without my consent? How exactly was I forced to do that when no one but me was making the decision?
It's pretty simple. If you don't want to do it but you do it anyway it means there are outside variables influencing your decision.
|
On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right. Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right."
... and those would be your books right?. 
i'd give to that a 50/50 chance at best. also, what if you don't have time to wait until they make up their minds?
ps: i'm with DeepElemBlues on the whole consent thing. i mean i understand it as he does.
|
On July 28 2013 06:21 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
Is that so hard to grasp? You try to change it through legislation and education. Atleast it's better than your position of; Meh, can't be bothered. It's their culture, let's look the other way and plug our ears to millions of mutilations and thousands of deaths.
You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex.
On July 28 2013 06:25 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right. Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right." ... and those would be your books right?. i'd give to that a 50/50 chance at best. also, what if you don't have time to wait until they make up their minds? ps: i'm with DeepElemBlues on the whole consent thing. i mean i understand it as he does.
My /sadface when I try to use bad sarcasm to back your statement and you don't notice it but Mothra does and points out that it's unnecessary indeed :'(
|
On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: Show nested quote +There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex.
you can donate to organizations/charities that work in the affected countries to stop the practice.
|
On July 28 2013 06:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 05:49 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 05:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught? Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra. There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. That doesn't make it less rape. You're using consent wrong. That's not marital rape. Not wanting to but doing it anyway without compulsion is giving consent. It may be stupid and wrong in your eyes but it is not withholding consent. Not wanting to and your husband threatens you for not doing your wifely duties (or whatever) or physically overpowers you would be no consent and thus rape. "I don't want to but I'll do it anyway" is consent. "I don't want to and I won't" and then being compelled to through threats or violence is not consent. You're using consent wrong. If you don't want to do it, you're not giving consent. How is that hard to mix up? If you don't want to do it and do it anyway with no one but you making the decision, how are you not giving consent? How is that hard to mix up? Consent is a personal issue. No consent takes two to tango. If my girlfriend asks me to go to the store to pick up tampons and I don't want to but I decide to do it anyway because she's my girlfriend and I feel an obligation to do what she asks, am I going to buy tampons without my consent? How exactly was I forced to do that when no one but me was making the decision? It's pretty simple. If you don't want to do it but you do it anyway it means there are outside variables influencing your decision.
Yes, but those are not necessarily coercion or force. Doing something for outside reasons is not bad per se.
|
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 28 2013 06:25 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right. Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right." ... and those would be your books right?. i'd give to that a 50/50 chance at best. also, what if you don't have time to wait until they make up their minds? ps: i'm with DeepElemBlues on the whole consent thing. i mean i understand it as he does.
DeepElemBlues is completely right in what he's said about consent but he misinterpreted what Kwark was saying, a simple mistake.
|
On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: Show nested quote +There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex.
Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject.
Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then...
|
Okay, so i get why this is bad when it is forced against adult women but we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs of "right" and "wrong" on other cultures that we cannot pretend understand. It should be a decision made on an individual case, making sweeping judgements is never a good idea.
|
On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then...
Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one:
On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:
I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women.
I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede.
[quote]
False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D
I just didn't like the stance of a few posters in this thread which is that it's objectively wrong and we, TL posters on our high-horse, have determined that we must act and stop them from doing something that has been scientifically proven morally wrong. Or whatever.
|
On July 28 2013 06:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:22 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 05:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 05:49 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 05:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.
So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.
And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught? Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra. There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. That doesn't make it less rape. You're using consent wrong. That's not marital rape. Not wanting to but doing it anyway without compulsion is giving consent. It may be stupid and wrong in your eyes but it is not withholding consent. Not wanting to and your husband threatens you for not doing your wifely duties (or whatever) or physically overpowers you would be no consent and thus rape. "I don't want to but I'll do it anyway" is consent. "I don't want to and I won't" and then being compelled to through threats or violence is not consent. You're using consent wrong. If you don't want to do it, you're not giving consent. How is that hard to mix up? If you don't want to do it and do it anyway with no one but you making the decision, how are you not giving consent? How is that hard to mix up? Consent is a personal issue. No consent takes two to tango. If my girlfriend asks me to go to the store to pick up tampons and I don't want to but I decide to do it anyway because she's my girlfriend and I feel an obligation to do what she asks, am I going to buy tampons without my consent? How exactly was I forced to do that when no one but me was making the decision? It's pretty simple. If you don't want to do it but you do it anyway it means there are outside variables influencing your decision. Yes, but those are not necessarily coercion or force. Doing something for outside reasons is not bad per se.
But it cannot be argued that it was your will alone.
|
On July 28 2013 06:34 cyclonous wrote:
Okay, so i get why this is bad when it is forced against adult women but we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs of "right" and "wrong" on other cultures that we cannot pretend understand. It should be a decision made on an individual case, making sweeping judgements is never a good idea.
That's like saying nazi culture is not wrong. Whether you like it or not, some things are objectively wrong.
|
On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works.
what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes.
you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D I just didn't like the stance of a few posters in this thread which is that it's objectively wrong and we, TL posters on our high-horse, have determined that we must act and stop them from doing something that has been scientifically proven morally wrong. Or whatever.
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism?
I believe that proposing cultural imperialism is a much worse stance to have than the supposed high-horse attitude of moral realism.
Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
