|
Man receives 80 public lashings for drinking and having sex outside of marriage.
Some Text: + Show Spoiler +His face covered by a balaclava, an official brandishing a cane repeatedly lashes the back of a man found guilty of breaking Iran's morality laws.
Two police officers hold the legs of 25-year-old Saeed Ghanbari and another his arms to ensure there is no escape from the punishment of 80 lashes handed down by a religious court.
Traffic was brought to a halt in Qazvin, 90 miles west of the capital Tehran, as more than 1,000 men gathered behind barricades to watch the public flogging.
Picture: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=477088&in_page_id=1770
Seems a bit rough huh?
Poll!
Poll: Do you think the lashings were justified? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Other
I personally think the lashings were extreme just for drinking and having sex (I mean, almost everyone I know in college does this), but perhaps they were justified because this is their culture. He probably knew the rules (although extremely strict and unfair by me) and did it anyway.
|
|
United States43060 Posts
Yes. In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that perhaps this theocracy is taking the prescribed punishments for sinning a little too seriously.
|
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please.
|
United States43060 Posts
Actually, it's time to bring out my trusty friend.
On August 21 2007 15:30 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2007 21:58 KwarK wrote: Humanity is quite possibly the worst species.
|
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
what, they got two lashers in case one gets tired?
|
right or wrong thats what they believe in...
|
On August 24 2007 07:24 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: what, they got two lashers in case one gets tired?
I think so. It's kind of like a tag team. I wonder if they feel a little remorse. I mean, I understand it's their job and 'duty,' but I do not have the balls to do that to anyone. Maybe to one kid, but not 80 times. I might want to kick him a couple of times but nothing that extreme.
|
there's like 4 hot guys in that picture.
rock on.
|
I read a few months ago (maybe a year?) where Iran executed two minors (under 18), I think their ages were like 13 for being homosexuals. They did a public hanging. I saw the pictures and they were quite upsetting. I'm sure I can dig them up on the 'net somewhere.
Found it!
Pic (no blood, etc. but very upsetting): + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please.
This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become.
|
People, don't be intolerant of their intolerance!
|
Osaka27154 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:24 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: what, they got two lashers in case one gets tired?
Yes exactly. Try whipping something 80 times with a cane. It is fucking tough.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:29 StripedBlueCrow wrote: I read a few months ago (maybe a year?) where Iran executed two minors (under 18), I think their ages were like 13 and 14 for being homosexuals. They did a public hanging. I saw the pictures and they were quite upsetting. I'm sure I can dig them up on the 'net somewhere.
|
"Earlier this year, a man was flogged after a copy of the Bible was found in his car."
From the Article.
My god, Islam is probably the most retarded religion there is. What is more sickening is to see so many pedestrians gathering up like it's so fucking magic show.
PS. I just noticed some dudes with machine guns, I bet you can't protest in Iran either >.<
|
On August 24 2007 07:27 Mora wrote: there's like 4 hot guys in that picture.
rock on.
Photoshop circles around them.
I WANNA SEE
|
On August 24 2007 07:35 Rev0lution wrote: "Earlier this year, a man was flogged after a copy of the Bible was found in his car."
From the Article.
My god, Islam is probably the most retarded religion there is. What is more sickening is to see so many pedestrians gathering up like it's so fucking magic show.
PS. I just noticed some dudes with machine guns, I bet you can't protest in Iran either >.<
You shouldn't be able to protest anywhere
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:30 fuglyfrog wrote: People, don't be intolerant of their intolerance!
Another misconception that annoys me. That intolerance is intrinsicly bad. In 1985 Bob Geldof got pissed off. Very pissed off. Live Aid was fueled by Geldofs anger that people could just sit by while millions starved. It wasn't happy clappy altruism. It was intolerance of the catastrophe in Ethiopia which led to £300,000,000 of aid being raised by the public.
|
Why is this guy getting caned 80 times?
edit - Oh "It was unclear exactly what his offence had been as the country's strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage."
|
On August 24 2007 07:26 HorsementalitY wrote: right or wrong thats what they believe in...
And then they want to keep their laws and ways of life when they come to OUR country ...
|
If you're a woman and do the same thing, you get 'stoned'.
In other words, you get buried into the ground and surrounded by family members and other people who throw small stones at you until you are killed (the stones aren't small enough to not hurt and not big enough to kill too quickly)
If you get out of the whole and out of a marked circle, you can live. Too bad you're buried tied with a rope and shoulder high in the ground.
|
On August 24 2007 07:38 CharlieMurphy wrote: Why is this guy getting caned 80 times?
edit - Oh "It was unclear exactly what his offence had been as the country's strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage."
Adultery is illegal over there. He is lucky he's a man, isn't it a death by stoning if it's a woman charged for the same?
|
On August 24 2007 07:41 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:38 CharlieMurphy wrote: Why is this guy getting caned 80 times?
edit - Oh "It was unclear exactly what his offence had been as the country's strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage." Adultery is illegal over there. He is lucky he's a man, isn't it a death by stoning if it's a woman charged for the same? Correct, men get punished a lot less severely.
|
On August 24 2007 07:41 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:38 CharlieMurphy wrote: Why is this guy getting caned 80 times?
edit - Oh "It was unclear exactly what his offence had been as the country's strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage." Adultery is illegal over there. He is lucky he's a man, isn't it a death by stoning if it's a woman charged for the same?
Correct. Women are punished even more severely.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well it is not simply 'they believe this to be right or wrong,' to describe things in that manner is really also getting entangled in the form of life that includes 'right or wrong.' now, a more damning description is, this group of people have these habits and conventions by which they live their lives. this includes causing pain and suffering to certain people by doing certain things.
now we have a basis from which to judge the situation, it is not good, and certainly, when compared with other instances of human colonies, this particular one can be said to be possessed by certain ideas and customs that could be called contrary to the way humans are supposed to live; backward; unenlightened etc.
|
He broke Iranian law for which there is clear consequences. Is his lashing really surprising news?
|
On August 24 2007 07:36 Element)LoGiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:27 Mora wrote: there's like 4 hot guys in that picture.
rock on. Photoshop circles around them. I WANNA SEE
I only found two for sure, maybe three. Definitely not four. One of the masked men is too fat, the other one has potential.
|
|
USA should turn IRan into parking lots.
|
Korea (South)11584 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:54 Storchen wrote: USA should turn IRan into parking lots.
what would we use that parking lot for?
|
On August 24 2007 07:55 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:54 Storchen wrote: USA should turn IRan into parking lots. what would we use that parking lot for?
To put our hummers and F250 trucks on.
|
Things like this make me speechless with pure anger. People who think that the role of the law is to tell others how to live their lives deserve to have their own stupidity turned against them.
|
On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not?
First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong?
I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have.....including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong.
It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable).
If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?)
|
On August 24 2007 07:55 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:54 Storchen wrote: USA should turn IRan into parking lots. what would we use that parking lot for?
Have sex with your girlfriend, what else do you think you can do in a parking lot !?
|
On August 24 2007 07:20 StripedBlueCrow wrote: Man receives 80 public lashings for drinking and having sex outside of marriage.
Had it been a woman, she would have been killed. There was a story not long ago about a 16 year old girl sentenced to a public stoning for having sex with someone.
|
On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?)
It does threaten me. I believe that every human should have certain rights, If another has these rights violated it violates me. For me, these claimed rights either apply to every human being or to no one, and if I condone that another's rights be violated I've forfeited any claims to these rights. I don't base this on ideas of right or wrong or some transcendental objective reality that dictates that it is so--I act according to my nature.
And ultimately my concern for the rights of every human being is a selfish impulse because my protection depends on their protection.
|
I'm all for nuking Iran now.
In all seriousness though. To all those who say "lets tolerate them." You wouldn't be saying this kind of stupidity if this were happening to you. Liberals make me laugh sometimes. You guys would be the first to be stoned to death if Islamic extremist were to rule your country.
Crimes against humanity are far too common in Iran, but how can you change their minds? If they truly believe it's the right of the goverment to severely punish people in that form. This is more torture than punishment, however, they probably consider adultery as a very high sin.
The whole policing the world thing comes to mind now. Only way to change their minds is to invade Iran. Basically because they have isolated themselves, they forbid foreigners from coming into their country and teach western culture, they forbid all religions outside of Islam, they lynch children and stone women to death. Again I ask. When will this all end?
|
On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?)
This is just fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it doesn't hurt YOU or YOUR people then they can keep killing each other llike pigs. As long as YOUR not affect from it then YOU won't give a crap.
That is just selfish and racist.
|
On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?)
All your stuff about evolution is irrelevant. Nature has no morality, but humans are not mere animals. We have our own subjective morality which is constantly evolving. While I admit that Western culture is far from perfect there are some changes in western morality which I feel are milestones in civilisation. Firstly, whatever takes place behind closed doors is no business of the state. This concept is both a milestone in personal liberty and in tolerance of others. It's the concept that as long as you're not enfringing on the rights of others you can do whatever you like. Gay, straight etc... It's all okay. This does not exist in many cultures around the world and it is nothing more than a denial of human rights. Punishment is not a goal of justice. Society gains nothing from punishment. If a man is a threat to society then remove him from it, forcibly if necessary. Prisons etc are necessary. However the goal should be prevention and rehabilitation. State governed vengeance is both pointless and barbaric. And this lashing is nothing more than that. Thirdly, the free will of the individual is sacrosanct. You suggested that sacrificing a few may keep the many happy. When asked how many innocents they'd be willing to kill to cure cancer the answer should always be 0. The common good is always second to the free will of the individual and unless the individual was willing to be sacrificed then it would not be an option. This concept does not conflict with laws that govern a state because those laws come from a popular mandate governed by the free will of the people. Liberalism is intrinsicly linked to democracy.
Tolerance is not an absolute. Nobody could argue that. If a friend told me they were gay I'd be fine with it. If a friend told me they were a rapist I'd be less fine. Both are his choice. I'm not judging it as an absolutist, saying whatever you choose is fine, but rather by the outcome. With the first nobody gets hurt. With the second innocent women are preyed upon. And thus I tolerate the first and not the second. Similarly with a society I am tolerant of a society the outcome of which is that nobody gets hurt. The factors I will judge this by are the 3 above. When it starts violating them I am much less tolerant of it.
Basically, intolerance of evil is fine.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs.
Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not.
|
On August 24 2007 08:18 Kwark wrote: Basically, intolerance of evil is fine. This reminded me of something...
+ Show Spoiler +
(like I said we need something more to go off of than feelings....underlying problem is still not solved in my mind)
|
Did you all know in Singapore a blowjob is a crime if no actual intercourse occurs after the sucking?
|
On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not.
I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground."
It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad.
|
A lashing can be far far worse than many people think in terms of the damage it can do to the person being lashed (I know no one has said anything to this effect but it's something that I used to think wasn't that bad until I learned about it a bit more). It can REALLY REALLY fuck you up, even 10 lashes can be permanently damaging.
|
On August 24 2007 07:48 StripedBlueCrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:36 Element)LoGiC wrote:On August 24 2007 07:27 Mora wrote: there's like 4 hot guys in that picture.
rock on. Photoshop circles around them. I WANNA SEE I only found two for sure, maybe three. Definitely not four. One of the masked men is too fat, the other one has potential.
The one in the top left is a total badass.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad.
Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism.
|
what's the law from anyway? religion?
|
On August 24 2007 08:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad. Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism. So its basically tolerance with a little political pressure added, which seems like a good action to take. However, isn't this basically discrimination?
|
On August 24 2007 08:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad. Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism.
We both know this isn't going to happen. North Korea doesn't have anything the Western World needs, whereas Iran is very influential in the Middle East which as we know is the one of the biggest producers of the black gold...
|
On August 24 2007 08:41 Auspicious wrote: A lashing can be far far worse than many people think in terms of the damage it can do to the person being lashed (I know no one has said anything to this effect but it's something that I used to think wasn't that bad until I learned about it a bit more). It can REALLY REALLY fuck you up, even 10 lashes can be permanently damaging. Can you elaborate? I believe you I just want to know what kind of damage we're talking about and I'm too lazy to look it up.
|
Iran lays down the law bitches.
|
|
IMHO they still live 500 years back in time. when u think about it the Inquisition did exactly that and much worse in its days. whenever u let the church get power thats when the problems start.for good or for worse the concept of democracy is far from the minds of those people simply because of their religion . maybe u dont know but many of the islamic countries are being led by religious leaders instead of real politicians. and there is a big gap between living with a moral (religion based) code and living under religious RULES. u also have to consider the fact that it is almost impossible to change the mind set of masses of people and it usually takes a long time to do so. we see this flogging as "bad" only because we were brought up in democratic and liberal countries and history tells us that religious rules can be exploited and generally harmful for liberal societies. i actually have lots of fellow students from islamic countries that when they came here to study ( in germany) didnt drink liquor, nor did they smoke pot and such but now the majority of them do. still sadly almost all of them still see women as inferior beings....but im getting off topic... to sum it up : give them some time and the concepts of democracy and liberalism will sink in. might take a while but a man cant change something like that with force or it backfires.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 09:01 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:53 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad. Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism. So its basically tolerance with a little political pressure added, which seems like a good action to take. However, isn't this basically discrimination? Yes. I'm all for discriminating against racism, sexism, persecution on the grounds of religion, corporal punishment, draconian impositions on free will and tyranny. Aren't you? Discrimination and tolerance are just words. Until you apply them to something they are neither good nor bad. Tolerance is negative if it means tolerance of evil. Discrimination is positive if it means rejection of evil.
|
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 09:26 str wrote: IMHO they still live 500 years back in time. when u think about it the Inquisition did exactly that and much worse in its days. whenever u let the church get power thats when the problems start.for good or for worse the concept of democracy is far from the minds of those people simply because of their religion . maybe u dont know but many of the islamic countries are being led by religious leaders instead of real politicians. and there is a big gap between living with a moral (religion based) code and living under religious RULES. u also have to consider the fact that it is almost impossible to change the mind set of masses of people and it usually takes a long time to do so. we see this flogging as "bad" only because we were brought up in democratic and liberal countries and history tells us that religious rules can be exploited and generally harmful for liberal societies. i actually have lots of fellow students from islamic countries that when they came here to study ( in germany) didnt drink liquor, nor did they smoke pot and such but now the majority of them do. still sadly almost all of them still see women as inferior beings....but im getting off topic... to sum it up : give them some time and the concepts of democracy and liberalism will sink in. might take a while but a man cant change something like that with force or it backfires.
Actually the evidence very much suggests that if you don't repress western values they are accepted eagerly by the people. Take the example of Turkey, or Japan for that matter. Or any of the ex-Soviet countries. The reason for this is that western values are generally good for the people involved. ie women like not being treated as second class citizens. gay people like not being hung. If the state lets the people choose I have confidence that they will make the humane choice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
typical western values might include, i dunno, ship building, bread and butter, and a bit of the individualism expected of a society not long freed from hunting and raiding.
seriously, some of these 'western values' is not really western. but meh.
|
On August 24 2007 08:18 Kwark wrote: All your stuff about evolution is irrelevant. Nature has no morality, but humans are not mere animals. We have our own subjective morality which is constantly evolving. While I admit that Western culture is far from perfect there are some changes in western morality which I feel are milestones in civilisation. Firstly, whatever takes place behind closed doors is no business of the state. This concept is both a milestone in personal liberty and in tolerance of others. It's the concept that as long as you're not enfringing on the rights of others you can do whatever you like. Gay, straight etc... It's all okay. This does not exist in many cultures around the world and it is nothing more than a denial of human rights. Punishment is not a goal of justice. Society gains nothing from punishment. If a man is a threat to society then remove him from it, forcibly if necessary. Prisons etc are necessary. However the goal should be prevention and rehabilitation. State governed vengeance is both pointless and barbaric. And this lashing is nothing more than that. Thirdly, the free will of the individual is sacrosanct. You suggested that sacrificing a few may keep the many happy. When asked how many innocents they'd be willing to kill to cure cancer the answer should always be 0. The common good is always second to the free will of the individual and unless the individual was willing to be sacrificed then it would not be an option. This concept does not conflict with laws that govern a state because those laws come from a popular mandate governed by the free will of the people. Liberalism is intrinsicly linked to democracy.
Tolerance is not an absolute. Nobody could argue that. If a friend told me they were gay I'd be fine with it. If a friend told me they were a rapist I'd be less fine. Both are his choice. I'm not judging it as an absolutist, saying whatever you choose is fine, but rather by the outcome. With the first nobody gets hurt. With the second innocent women are preyed upon. And thus I tolerate the first and not the second. Similarly with a society I am tolerant of a society the outcome of which is that nobody gets hurt. The factors I will judge this by are the 3 above. When it starts violating them I am much less tolerant of it.
Basically, intolerance of evil is fine.
happy birthday kwark!
first off lots of good posts in this thread. i'm kinda undecided, but here are some thoughts:
I think a lot of people mistakenly take the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want without harming others and extend it so that countries can do whatever they want without harming others. This doesn't work because the individual person is the unit that makes decisions; what the leaders of a country decide might go against many individuals. So in principle it's OK to be intolerant of cultures/countries for reprehensible actions against their citizens even if they don't harm other countries, but less OK to be intolerant of individuals for their own actions if they don't harm other individuals.
That said, you do need to carefully consider intolerance; you can't just go by your gut feeling of what feels right or wrong, because that's largely built up by your own culture/upbringing.
In this case, presumably the guy being punished went against the law of the land and basically knew that he could face these consequences if caught. As Kwark said, society needs to protect itself from actions that hurt the population at large. Presumably, Iran believes that adultery (or was it just premarital sex?) hurts their society. Maybe they think it leads to more adultery, more unhappy marriages, STDs, jealousy, even murder. It's even possible that they're right in their case. Now one way of protecting themselves from this is the promise of punishment as a deterrent (just like fines or jailtime). Maybe a public display of punishment is even more effective, I don't know.
It's not only Iran that limits individual (or couples) rights for society's sake. A weaker parallel to their law of sex outside of marriage is say 20 year olds having sex with 17 year olds in the US being illegal, calling it pedophilia. Or laws against suicide or euthanasia. Or seatbelt laws, drug usage, carrying guns, etc. You can't draw an absolute line and say what's right and wrong when individual rights conflict with society's best interests. At some point, judgment calls have to be made, and different cultures with different prevailing attitudes will make different decisions. And of course, it's imperfect, but if someone lives in a country with radically different attitudes than their own; they do have some freedom of emigration (like how Canada's immigration website had record traffic after Bush's 2004 re-election).
I will exercise abstinence for this poll since I'm not sure if I should vote heart or brain.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
I'd make it WW2 all over again except for muslims atm instead of jews if I got the damn chance.
Muslims and their shit disgust me. Tough luck for the (as it seems) minority that isn't fucked up and stays true to the original Islam which is actually the most tolerant religion out there.
|
Iran is a dry country? So drinking is already a lashing right?
|
damn. glad i live in america
|
On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become.
I agree completly. However I dont think muslims are any worse than christians. Christians have done the same or worse things before. The fact that western society has broken free from this kind of theocracy cant be credited to christianity being more humane than islam. Also its not like the US has been moving in the right direction last couple of decades. Since Reagan you have to be a devout christian to even be qualified to candidate for presidentcy. The evangelical loby is stronger than ever. They have started a creationism museum and are trying to get creationism taught in schools around the country. I think that if there isnt a reaction soon then western society or atleast the US wil fall back into theocracy again.
As you might know the arabs were advanced far beyond europe durign the middle ages. Words like algebra and algorithm are arabic. They had a culture of reason, critical thinking and science back then. What you might not know is that what stopped that period and made them fall down the abyss of theocracy was something a lot like what is happening in the US today. People started doubting science and there were arabic philosofers who stated that the numbers and mathematics were the devils invention. Thats the kind of stuff that happend when you lose faith in reason and critical thinking.
I hope I dont make this into a religion thread I only meant this for reflection. Please dont respond to me if you want to discuss relgion vs atheism ._. Or if you feel you have to then quote what I wrote here and paste it in one of the old religion threads. :s
|
this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right).
|
On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). I agree completly. I cant believe im hearing those words from someone from Israel ._. Its not what im used to hearing Israelis say about muslims.
|
On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly
Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down.
|
On August 24 2007 09:44 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 09:26 str wrote: IMHO they still live 500 years back in time. when u think about it the Inquisition did exactly that and much worse in its days. whenever u let the church get power thats when the problems start.for good or for worse the concept of democracy is far from the minds of those people simply because of their religion . maybe u dont know but many of the islamic countries are being led by religious leaders instead of real politicians. and there is a big gap between living with a moral (religion based) code and living under religious RULES. u also have to consider the fact that it is almost impossible to change the mind set of masses of people and it usually takes a long time to do so. we see this flogging as "bad" only because we were brought up in democratic and liberal countries and history tells us that religious rules can be exploited and generally harmful for liberal societies. i actually have lots of fellow students from islamic countries that when they came here to study ( in germany) didnt drink liquor, nor did they smoke pot and such but now the majority of them do. still sadly almost all of them still see women as inferior beings....but im getting off topic... to sum it up : give them some time and the concepts of democracy and liberalism will sink in. might take a while but a man cant change something like that with force or it backfires. Actually the evidence very much suggests that if you don't repress western values they are accepted eagerly by the people. Take the example of Turkey, or Japan for that matter. Or any of the ex-Soviet countries. The reason for this is that western values are generally good for the people involved. ie women like not being treated as second class citizens. gay people like not being hung. If the state lets the people choose I have confidence that they will make the humane choice.
my sentiments exactly. although the "if" in ur last sentence is preeety big. it should be clear that the people with power are not going to willingly let go of it therefore they wont just let the people choose what they want to do. furthermore for the people that have spent their whole lives inside such countries/communities there would be no reason to change anything since they have never experienced the "western values" and for all they know we are all sinners and shall burn in hell. thats where the younger generation come into play. they come to the western world and soak up the ideas of democracy and liberalism and in some maybe not so distant future they will rise against the system. u could actually see this in my home country Bulgaria. many of the 60+ year olds still believe that 45 years of communism was the best that ever happened to us(which of course couldnt be further from the truth) and it was the young generation at that time that rebelled and overthrew the system. it really wasnt that hard for us bulgarians to do so since at that time (~1989) most of the communist regimes in our region had already collapsed. thats why i think it will be much harder for the islamic countries to follow suite. but as i said its all a matter of internal struggle and one can only hope for their sake theyll come about sooner than later
|
On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Well, it is true that the lives of mohammed and jesus were almost identical. + Show Spoiler +obligatory notice of sarcasm in preceding sentence
|
On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples?
Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples.
Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable.
|
On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs.
because someone needs to say it. Just cause a 95 ford taurus and the mclauren F1 are both cars does not mean they are equal some shit is just plain better than others. No matter how bad western society is we are still a step up from theirs.
|
Does anyone know the laws regarding leaving Iran? With regards to all this talk of "tolerating other cultures", it seems like it could work if all citizens were able to leave and apply for entrance into another country of their choosing. Don't like the rules in the USA? You can leave. Don't like the rules in Iran? Somehow I doubt you can freely leave.
However, I don't believe we can just respect the actions of other cultures as long as they simply don't threaten us directly. There are some actions that I believe most humans would consider wrong and action should be taken against the offending group. The holocaust anyone? Any of you people preaching tolerance want to tell me their stance on "tolerating" the Nazis and their actions?
|
On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable.
by definition people advocating for things like the death penalty for gays, prohibition etc are not 'mainstream' in the U.S. but that doesn't mean they don't exist or have considerable influence. look at Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for example.
google search 'death penalty for gays.' the first two results are a colorado radio show host and someone who ran for the senate.
here is the website of someone currently running for the U.S. senate. it advocates, among other things, execution for gays and flogging for adulterers.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 10:59 Phyre wrote: Does anyone know the laws regarding leaving Iran? With regards to all this talk of "tolerating other cultures", it seems like it could work if all citizens were able to leave and apply for entrance into another country of their choosing. Don't like the rules in the USA? You can leave. Don't like the rules in Iran? Somehow I doubt you can freely leave. Outside the EU no country operates that policy and even within the EU it is only for citizens of other member states. As a citizen of America you could probably get a permit to live and work pretty much anywhere you wanted. As a citizen of Iran you'd stand pretty much 0 chance of being allowed to live and work within America, or to be honest, within most of the Western world. It's pretty shameful.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable.
You ask for mainstream examples of extremism. You must see why that's difficult to provide. I never claimed they were mainstream, I said that they exist and that there are a lot of them. A few seconds on google revealed the following. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or source as I did not care enough to look into either. Sorry. + Show Spoiler +DOMINIONISTS AND RECONSTRUCTIONISTS The Reconstructionist movement, founded in 1973 by Rousas Rushdooney, is the intellectual foundation for the most politically active element within the Christian Right. Rushdooney's 1,600 page three-volume work, Institutes of Biblical Law, argued that American society should be governed according to the Biblical precepts in the Ten Commandments. He wrote that the elect, like Adam and Noah, were given dominion over the earth by God and must subdue the earth, along with all non-believers, so the Messiah could return. This was a radically new interpretation for many in the evangelical movement. The Messiah, it was traditionally taught, would return in an event called "the Rapture" where there would be wars and chaos. The non-believers would be tormented and killed and the elect would be lifted to heaven. The Rapture was not something that could be manipulated or influenced, although believers often interpreted catastrophes and wars as portents of the imminent Second Coming. Rushdooney promoted an ideology that advocated violence to create the Christian state. His ideology was the mirror image of Liberation Theology, which came into vogue at about the same time. While the Liberation Theologians crammed the Bible into the box of Marxism, Rushdooney crammed it into the equally distorting box of classical fascism. This clash was first played out in Latin America when I was there as a reporter two decades ago. In El Salvador leftist priests endorsed and even traveled with the rebel movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador, while Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, along with conservative Latin American clerics, backed the Contras fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the murderous military regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile and Argentina. The Institutes of Biblical Law called for a Christian society that was harsh, unforgiving and violent. Offenses such as adultery, witchcraft, blasphemy and homosexuality, merited the death penalty. The world was to be subdued and ruled by a Christian United States. Rushdooney dismissed the number of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust as an inflated figure and his theories on race echoed Nazi Eugenics. "The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires...," he wrote. "The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity has been governed by radically different considerations." "The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of the magic are control and power over God, man, nature, and society. Voodoo, or magic, was the religion and life of American Negroes. Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo, a modernized power drive." (see The Religious Right , a publication of the ADL, pg. 124.) Rushdooney was deeply antagonistic to the federal government. He believed the federal government should concern itself with little more than national defense. Education and social welfare should be handed over to the churches. Biblical law must replace the secular legal code. This ideology remains at the heart of the movement. It is being enacted through school vouchers, with federal dollars now going into Christian schools, and the assault against the federal agencies that deal with poverty and human services. The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is currently channeling millions in federal funds to groups such Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing , and National Right to Life, as well as to fundamentalist religious charity organizations and programs promoting sexual abstinence. Rushdooney laid the groundwork for a new way of thinking about political involvement. The Christian state would come about not only through signs and wonders, as those who believed in the rapture believed? , but also through theestablishment of the Christian nation. But he remained, even within the Christian Right, a deeply controversial figure. Dr. Tony Evans, the minister of a Dallas church and the founder of Promise Keepers, articulated Rushdooney's extremism in a more palatable form. He called on believers, often during emotional gatherings at football stadiums, to commit to Christ and exercise power within the society as agents of Christ. He also called for a Christian state. But he did not advocate the return of slavery, as Rushdooney did, nor list a string of offenses such as adultery punishable by death, nor did he espouse the Nazi-like race theories. It was through Evans, who was a spiritual mentor to George Bush that Dominionism came to dominate the politically active wing of the Christian Right.The religious utterances from political leaders such as George Bush, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson and Zell Miller are only understandable in light of Rushdooney and Dominionism. These leaders believe that God has selected them to battle the forces of evil, embodied in "secular humanism," to create a Christian nation. Pat Robertson frequently tells believers "our aim is to gain dominion over society." Delay has told supporters, such as at a gathering two years ago at the First Baptist Church in Pearland , Texas , "He [God] is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me." Delay went on to tell followers "If we stay inside the church, the culture won't change." Pat Robertson, who changed the name of his university to Regent University , says he is training his students to rule when the Christian regents take power, part of the reign leading to the return of Christ. Robertson resigned as the head of the Christian Coalition when Bush took office, a sign many took to signal the ascendancy of the first regent. This battle is not rhetorical but one that followers are told will ultimately involve violence. And the enemy is clearly defined and marked for destruction. "Secular Humanists," the popular Christian Right theologian Francis Schaeffer wrote in one of numerous diatribes, "are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known." One of the most enlightening books that exposes the ultimate goals of movement is America's Providential History , the standard textbook used in many Christian schools and a staple of the Christian home schooling movement. It sites Genesis 26, which calls for mankind to " .have dominnion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" as evidence that the Bible callls for "Bible believing Christians" to take dominion of America. "When God brings Noah through the flood to a new earth, He reestablished the Dominion Mandate but now delegates to man the responsibility for governing other men." (page 19). The authors write that God has called the United States to become "the first truly Christian nation" (page 184) and "make disciples of all nations." The book denounces income tax as "idolatry," property tax as "theft" and calls for an abolish of inheritance taxes in the chapter entitled Christian Economics. The loss of such tax revenues will bring about the withering away of the federal government and the empowerment of the authoritarian church, although this is not explict in the text. Rushdooney's son-in-law, Gary North, a popular writer and founder of the Institute for Christian Economics, laid out the aims of the Christian Right. "So let's be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (Christianity and Civilization, Spring, 1982) Dominionists have to operate, for now, in the contaminated environment of the secular, liberal state. They have learned, therefore, to speak in code. The code they use is the key to understanding the dichotomy of the movement, one that has a public and a private face. In this they are no different from the vanguard, as described by Lenin, or the Islamic terrorists who shave off their beards, adopt western dress and watch pay-for-view pornographic movies in their hotel rooms the night before hijacking a plane for a suicide attack. Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University , who runs the encyclopedic web site theocracywatch.org, was on a speaking tour a few years ago in Iowa . She obtained a copy of a memo Pat Robertson handed out to followers at the Iowa Republican County Caucus. It was titled, "How to Participate in a Political Party" and read: "Rule the world for God." "Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology. "Hide your strength. "Don't flaunt your Christianity. "Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership whenever possible, God willing."
|
On August 24 2007 11:00 iosef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable. by definition people advocating for things like the death penalty for gays, prohibition etc are not 'mainstream' in the U.S. but that doesn't mean they don't exist or have considerable influence. look at Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for example. google search 'death penalty for gays.' the first two results are a colorado radio show host and someone who ran for the senate. here is the website of someone currently running for the U.S. senate. it advocates, among other things, execution for gays and flogging for adulterers. That's not mainstream.
You compare the major front-running idealogy of Iran to that of the most-fringed spectrum of American reactionaries. You fail.
|
just remember those arguing about it being culture
that slavery was the culture in the southern US 150 years ago, would you feel the same about that?
|
You have to think like a sociologist. Just because their culture is different from your's doesn't make what they do wrong or right. Everyone is brought up differently according. Your behavior is shaped according to what your nation/society holds dear in order to survive.
Hopefully when you grow up you will understand the world around you better.
There is no such thing as right and wrong. What you are told is 'natural' is in fact unnatural. Nothing we do is natural. Sure, we share many biological/physical attributes except for skin color. Hell, one of my profs even said it: 'We're all shades of black.'
You are raised and shaped to believe certain myths that are the foundation of your nations, i.e. Americans - individualistic, equality and freedom ways whereas Muslims live based on a Patriarchal, male dominated society where religious ideals are favored heavily to maintain order in a chaotic world. They do it to preserve their system and anyone intolerant should know they will receive the same punishment if they don't obey.
You should pick up an American History Textbook sometime. It is the most sugarcoated, Patriotic load of crap I have ever read in my entire life. Read anything based on the Frontier - from the East to the West.
For more examples look at the State School System, or Slavery. You cannot argue against science.
Every society does this though. They want you to catter to the basis of what their society is.
Why do you everyone thinks Canadians are so friendly? It's because Canada was built on a collective system not to mention the winter weather used to be so bad the first settlers had to work together just to survive.
|
On August 24 2007 11:04 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable. You ask for mainstream examples of extremism. You must see why that's difficult to provide. Hmm, I knew you misunderstood, which is why I directed you to iosef's post, which was what I responded to. He stated that contemporary religious people in the United States would implement the same laws. I questioned that. You said there's no shortage of such political bids. I said "show me a few". You said, "i can't, that's hard".
lol
Rather than admit your hyperbole, you give me that garbage post. Pffft
|
On August 24 2007 11:01 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 10:59 Phyre wrote: Does anyone know the laws regarding leaving Iran? With regards to all this talk of "tolerating other cultures", it seems like it could work if all citizens were able to leave and apply for entrance into another country of their choosing. Don't like the rules in the USA? You can leave. Don't like the rules in Iran? Somehow I doubt you can freely leave. Outside the EU no country operates that policy and even within the EU it is only for citizens of other member states. As a citizen of America you could probably get a permit to live and work pretty much anywhere you wanted. As a citizen of Iran you'd stand pretty much 0 chance of being allowed to live and work within America, or to be honest, within most of the Western world. It's pretty shameful. My apologies, I'm not terribly up and up on how immigration laws work. I was under the impression that most more modern countries allow their citizens to leave whenever they want for any reason pretty much. Also, I thought going to other countries was relatively easy. Plenty of international students at the college I go to and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard for most of them to begin working and living here if they so chose. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:07 Fab Abs wrote: You have to think like a sociologist. Just because their culture is different from your's doesn't make what they do wrong or right. Everyone is brought up differently according. Your behavior is shaped according to what your nation/society holds dear in order to survive.
Hopefully when you grow up you will understand the world around you better.
There is no such thing as right and wrong. What you are told is 'natural' is in fact unnatural. Nothing we do is natural. Sure, we share many biological/physical attributes except for skin color. Hell, one of my profs even said it: 'We're all shades of black.'
You are raised and shaped to believe certain myths that are the foundation of your nations, i.e. Americans - individualistic, equality and freedom ways whereas Muslims live based on a Patriarchal, male dominated society where religious ideals are favored heavily to maintain order in a chaotic world. They do it to preserve their system and anyone intolerant should know they will receive the same punishment if they don't obey.
You should pick up an American History Textbook sometime. It is the most sugarcoated, Patriotic load of crap I have ever read in my entire life. Read anything based on the Frontier - from the East to the West.
Every society does this though. They want you to catter to the basis of what their society is.
Why do you everyone thinks Canadians are so friendly? It's because Canada was built on a collective system not to mention the winter weather used to be so bad the first settlers had to work together just to survive.
You're right. Their culture isn't bad because it's different. It's bad because of the widespread and systematic human rights abuses. Any questions?
|
On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote: Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not.
Youre not tolerating their definition of humans rights.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:09 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:01 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:59 Phyre wrote: Does anyone know the laws regarding leaving Iran? With regards to all this talk of "tolerating other cultures", it seems like it could work if all citizens were able to leave and apply for entrance into another country of their choosing. Don't like the rules in the USA? You can leave. Don't like the rules in Iran? Somehow I doubt you can freely leave. Outside the EU no country operates that policy and even within the EU it is only for citizens of other member states. As a citizen of America you could probably get a permit to live and work pretty much anywhere you wanted. As a citizen of Iran you'd stand pretty much 0 chance of being allowed to live and work within America, or to be honest, within most of the Western world. It's pretty shameful. My apologies, I'm not terribly up and up on how immigration laws work. I was under the impression that most more modern countries allow their citizens to leave whenever they want for any reason pretty much. Also, I thought going to other countries was relatively easy. Plenty of international students at the college I go to and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard for most of them to begin working and living here if they so chose. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Leave, yes? Enter, no. You can't leave unless you've got somewhere to go.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:10 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote: Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. Youre not tolerating their definition of humans rights.
Correct, I am not. You disagree with the commonly held definition of human rights?
|
I think the point is that there is no meta-definition of human rights. Your appeal to "commonly held" is clearly problematic.
Though in principle, as I stated early, I agree with your rejection of post-modern "tolerance".
|
That guy sure does have some gay underwear.
|
United States43060 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
|
In their society there is no such thing as human rights. That is the foundation of Western Society, whereas the communal rite of way in Muslim soceity is to have strict laws to strength their ideology. Everything is punishable by law. They have everyone watch so they know what waits them if they decide not to follow the code.
One right they DO have is to leave the country in exile because they beg to differ, wish to have more freedoms, etc. But, to do that you need money and many do not.
I have many Muslim friends who left on their own accord and yes for some it is against their religious/cultural beliefs to drink, etc. Some do, some choose not to.
They are in America now for a reason.
As for your GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (rofl)
No society has to follow this declaration and they have every right not to.
In fact, many societies/tribes that you would call primitive (there are thousands of them) don't follow it and would never follow it because they have no need for it.
They simply do what they have to do to survive. If that means beating the hell out of one of their citizens in public then so be it. They are doing what they have to do to the intolerant to preserve the basis of their society.
|
On August 24 2007 11:08 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:04 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable. You ask for mainstream examples of extremism. You must see why that's difficult to provide. Hmm, I knew you misunderstood, which is why I directed you to iosef's post, which was what I responded to. He stated that contemporary religious people in the United States would implement the same laws. I questioned that. You said there's no shortage of such political bids. I said "show me a few". You said, "i can't, that's hard". lol Rather than admit your hyperbole, you give me that garbage post. Pffft
your logic here is deficient. there are people in the US that would implement these same laws. a fairlylarge number even. you dismissed them because they are not 'mainstream,' well, of course they aren't, by definition. they aren't mainstream because the US has separation of church and state. it has civil rights. Iran is an example of a state without such protections.
|
sadly it's quite barbaric in that part of the world. they don't know anything other than fighting, war, and hard religion so it's hard to judge them from outside the bubble. however, i think we all can agree that forced punishment on religious premise shouldn't be happening, period. this is the kind of stuff that richard dawkins warns us about when people say religion is not harmful.
|
On August 24 2007 11:19 Kwark wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Are you implying that this was authored in a context-free environment?
I think you miss my point.
|
Did the women get caught having sex with him? Man I feel bad for him, women arent treated much better though, they get beaten up from their husbands. I saw this one like documentary sorta ish but it was more of a movie, about some white woman married to an islamic man and he convinces her to go to iran for their family and says its gonna be ok but when they get there he beats the crap out of her. she somehow escapes with these nice islam people, great movie.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:19 Fab Abs wrote: In their society there is no such thing as human rights. That is the foundation of Western Society, whereas the communal rite of way in Muslim soceity is to have strict laws to strength their ideology. Everything is punishable by law. They have everyone watch so they know what waits them if they decide not to follow the code.
One right they DO have is to leave the country in exile because they beg to differ, wish to have more freedoms, etc. But, to do that you need money and many do not.
I have many Muslim friends who left on their own accord and yes for some it is against their religious/cultural beliefs to drink, etc. Some do, some choose not to.
They are in America now for a reason.
As for your GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (rofl)
No society has to follow this declaration and they have every right not to.
In fact, many societies/tribes that you would call primitive (there are thousands of them) don't follow it and would never follow it because they have no need for it.
The thing you are so happily 'rofl'ing at was the UN statute on human rights. Just so you know. Oh, and the UN is considered an important organisation by many.
|
On August 24 2007 11:21 iosef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:08 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 11:04 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable. You ask for mainstream examples of extremism. You must see why that's difficult to provide. Hmm, I knew you misunderstood, which is why I directed you to iosef's post, which was what I responded to. He stated that contemporary religious people in the United States would implement the same laws. I questioned that. You said there's no shortage of such political bids. I said "show me a few". You said, "i can't, that's hard". lol Rather than admit your hyperbole, you give me that garbage post. Pffft your logic here is deficient. there are people in the US that would implement these same laws. a fairlylarge number even. you dismissed them because they are not 'mainstream,' well, of course they aren't, by definition. they aren't mainstream because the US has separation of church and state. it has civil rights. Iran is an example of a state without such protections. First of all, I'm going to leave you with whatever definitions of "separation" and "civil rights" you currently have.
Secondly, when making a qualitative comparison between cultures, it's unfair to not weigh-in the proliferation of the individual ideologies you're comparing. The dumbasses have control in Iran, but not here. Our culture would never allow it, because the extremist would never be able to garner support for, from your example, "death penalty for gays". This distinguishes our culture from that of Iran's.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:22 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:19 Kwark wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Are you implying that this was authored in a context-free environment? I think you miss my point.
Of course it was written in a context. 50 years ago gay marriage would have been a shocking idea to everyone. In 50 years I hope the idea of it not being legal is equally shocking. The UN declaration of human rights is however authored in the most recent international context. If I could see into the future and find a human rights document from a context in which humanity is even more civilised I would be eager to apply that one. However given my inability to do so I shall rely on the most recent context.
|
On August 24 2007 11:27 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:19 Fab Abs wrote: In their society there is no such thing as human rights. That is the foundation of Western Society, whereas the communal rite of way in Muslim soceity is to have strict laws to strength their ideology. Everything is punishable by law. They have everyone watch so they know what waits them if they decide not to follow the code.
One right they DO have is to leave the country in exile because they beg to differ, wish to have more freedoms, etc. But, to do that you need money and many do not.
I have many Muslim friends who left on their own accord and yes for some it is against their religious/cultural beliefs to drink, etc. Some do, some choose not to.
They are in America now for a reason.
As for your GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (rofl)
No society has to follow this declaration and they have every right not to.
In fact, many societies/tribes that you would call primitive (there are thousands of them) don't follow it and would never follow it because they have no need for it. The thing you are so happily 'rofl'ing at was the UN statute on human rights. Just so you know. Oh, and the UN is considered an important organisation by many. And in the end, even you admit that the validity of the viewpoint depends on the amount of support it's purporting institution has. There is no self-proving definition of human rights. I just don't see how such impositions are to be seen as valid within a culture which views itself as discrete from, not just the UN, but Western Civilization.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:08 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:04 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:39 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 10:26 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 10:15 iosef wrote: this is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. this is what happens when the state has the power to limit people's individual freedoms and civil rights.
don't blame 'Islam' for this shit. don't blame 'their values' or 'their society.' religious nuts would institute exactly the same rules in the USA if they were given free sway over the government, and you know it. what's scary is that the people who would turn the US into an Iran-style theocracy have tremendous political strength (read: the Christian Right). orly Yes. There are no shortage of campaigns for america to be governed by biblical law. Fortunately there are sufficient moderates for that to be turned down. Examples? Since there's "no shortage", give 3 mainstream examples. Also, remember that the original poster claimed that religious nuts in the US would implement "exactly the same" rules, so list something reasonably comparable. You ask for mainstream examples of extremism. You must see why that's difficult to provide. Hmm, I knew you misunderstood, which is why I directed you to iosef's post, which was what I responded to. He stated that contemporary religious people in the United States would implement the same laws. I questioned that. You said there's no shortage of such political bids. I said "show me a few". You said, "i can't, that's hard". lol Rather than admit your hyperbole, you give me that garbage post. Pffft
You twisted what I said. I simply said there was no shortage of Americans who wanted biblical law and rule. You asked me to find mainstream examples. My defence that there were no mainstream examples was correct, not because there were no examples of extremism but because, to repeat the obvious, extremism isn't mainstream.
However to meet your request I present you with this guy. http://www.teamtancredo.com/ I believe he's standing on a Dominionist platform.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:31 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:27 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 11:19 Fab Abs wrote: In their society there is no such thing as human rights. That is the foundation of Western Society, whereas the communal rite of way in Muslim soceity is to have strict laws to strength their ideology. Everything is punishable by law. They have everyone watch so they know what waits them if they decide not to follow the code.
One right they DO have is to leave the country in exile because they beg to differ, wish to have more freedoms, etc. But, to do that you need money and many do not.
I have many Muslim friends who left on their own accord and yes for some it is against their religious/cultural beliefs to drink, etc. Some do, some choose not to.
They are in America now for a reason.
As for your GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (rofl)
No society has to follow this declaration and they have every right not to.
In fact, many societies/tribes that you would call primitive (there are thousands of them) don't follow it and would never follow it because they have no need for it. The thing you are so happily 'rofl'ing at was the UN statute on human rights. Just so you know. Oh, and the UN is considered an important organisation by many. And in the end, even you admit that the validity of the viewpoint depends on the amount of support it's purporting institution has. There is no self-proving definition of human rights. I just don't see how such impositions are to be seen as valid within a culture which views itself as discrete from, not just the UN, but Western Civilization.
They don't have to be seen as valid to be correct. Every now and then in Britain right wing tabloids go crazy when an asylum seeker rapes someone. Basically this is some retard who declares he has a right to sex and because British women do not wear veils they are all whores and thus should submit to his desires. When we imprison them they rant on about the great injustice being done to them. That doesn't make it any less just. It just makes them more retarded.
|
On August 24 2007 11:30 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:22 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 11:19 Kwark wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Are you implying that this was authored in a context-free environment? I think you miss my point. Of course it was written in a context. 50 years ago gay marriage would have been a shocking idea to everyone. In 50 years I hope the idea of it not being legal is equally shocking. The UN declaration of human rights is however authored in the most recent international context. If I could see into the future and find a human rights document from a context in which humanity is even more civili(z)ed I would be eager to apply that one. However given my inability to do so I shall rely on the most recent context. I'm just whittling the argument down to the point where you use a personal opinion to separate the chaff from the wheat. Implying that society is moving towards enlightenment, and that we can objectively differentiate between "good" ideas and "bad" ideas by choosing them according to timescale. But again, the cultural evolution you speak of is within your own culture, and you still haven't stepped out of the box. Sorry if this is not making sense, I'm altered state right now. wink wink nod nod
|
Nah, really?
I am well aware of who the lead architect was.
You say the U.N. is a strong, important organization. I beg to differ. Their democratic system has been a giant joke for over a decade. Ever since the end of the Cold War their results have been minimal and conflict between nations still pursue. Some things you cannot change and plus several nations aren't even apart of this organization. The U.N. is very limited and this won't change anytime soon unless we all grow to accept the same belief system and who would want that? Life would be bland and boring without rebellion.
Society cannot live without criminals. They are an integral part of society.
|
On August 24 2007 11:38 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:31 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 11:27 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 11:19 Fab Abs wrote: In their society there is no such thing as human rights. That is the foundation of Western Society, whereas the communal rite of way in Muslim soceity is to have strict laws to strength their ideology. Everything is punishable by law. They have everyone watch so they know what waits them if they decide not to follow the code.
One right they DO have is to leave the country in exile because they beg to differ, wish to have more freedoms, etc. But, to do that you need money and many do not.
I have many Muslim friends who left on their own accord and yes for some it is against their religious/cultural beliefs to drink, etc. Some do, some choose not to.
They are in America now for a reason.
As for your GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (rofl)
No society has to follow this declaration and they have every right not to.
In fact, many societies/tribes that you would call primitive (there are thousands of them) don't follow it and would never follow it because they have no need for it. The thing you are so happily 'rofl'ing at was the UN statute on human rights. Just so you know. Oh, and the UN is considered an important organisation by many. And in the end, even you admit that the validity of the viewpoint depends on the amount of support it's purporting institution has. There is no self-proving definition of human rights. I just don't see how such impositions are to be seen as valid within a culture which views itself as discrete from, not just the UN, but Western Civilization. They don't have to be seen as valid to be correct. Every now and then in Britain right wing tabloids go crazy when an asylum seeker rapes someone. Basically this is some retard who declares he has a right to sex and because British women do not wear veils they are all whores and thus should submit to his desires. When we imprison them they rant on about the great injustice being done to them. That doesn't make it any less just. It just makes them more retarded. Well, I think we've clearly moved on from the topic and crossed into absolutism versus relativism. I think you know I agree with you and am playing devil's advocate for the relativists, anyways. :p
|
United States43060 Posts
Please don't attempt to criticise my correct English spelling with your inferior and degenerate American versions. That you even attempted to draw attention to my spelling mistake smacks of pedantry but that you did so when my spelling was correct just makes you look the fool. And yes, criticise is spelt correctly.
|
It was a joke.
Fix your goddamn teeth while you're at it, if we're on the subject.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:43 Fab Abs wrote: Society cannot live without criminals. They are an integral part of society. Care to explain that one?
|
You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:46 HeadBangaa wrote: It was a joke.
Fix your goddamn teeth while you're at it, if we're on the subject. Pronounce Pittsburgh properly. It should be Pits-bruh.
|
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote: You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want.
We find your entire society laughable. You're all so wound up about everything. The athiests are passionate athiests constantly watching for attacks on the separation of church and state. The gun lobby constantly fears that King George wants them to disarm. And you're all so damn proud of your constitution and your enshrined freedoms. If you all learnt to relax a little you'd not need any of it.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote: PittsBurg. Edinburgh Ed-in-bru (u like in up)
|
200 years ago, American English was a shocking idea to everyone. In 200, years I hope the idea of it not being wrong is equally shocking. The conventions of American English are, however, authored in the most recent international context. If I could see into the future and find a language from a context in which language is even more Americanized, I would be eager to apply that one. However given my inability to do so I shall rely on the most recent context.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:52 HeadBangaa wrote: 200 years ago, American English was a shocking idea to everyone. In 200, years I hope the idea of it not being wrong is equally shocking. The conventions of American English are, however, authored in the most recent international context. If I could see into the future and find a language from a context in which language is even more Americanized, I would be eager to apply that one. However given my inability to do so I shall rely on the most recent context. Fuck you!
|
On August 24 2007 11:50 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote: You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want. We find your entire society laughable. You're all so wound up about everything. The athiests are passionate athiests constantly watching for attacks on the separation of church and state. The gun lobby constantly fears that King George wants them to disarm. And you're all so damn proud of your constitution and your enshrined freedoms. If you all learnt to relax a little you'd not need any of it. Who is this King George? Is he democrat or republican?
ok ok i stop now :p
|
United States43060 Posts
To clarify, we'll be back. And we'll teach you colonials a lesson. We'll rally Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and South Africa to the cause. You fuckers won't know what hit you. We'll tax you and we won't represent you and shit.
|
Calfornia Tea Party here I come
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:55 HeadBangaa wrote: Calfornia Tea Party here I come Shit was totally rigged anyway. They were only pissed off because a change in customs laws meant they lost an unfair advantage over Indian tea. A bunch of rich merchants suddenly find they're getting competition from the East India Company so dump their worthless crop in the sea and then act like it's patriotic. It's bullshit. You guys actually had a pretty sweet deal as part of our Empire at the time.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
It is worth recalling that flogging and caning were forms of legal punishment across the British Empire and in many other nations not too many years ago (including the USA).
Speaking only of the current example I would rather go for a flogging than lose more than half my assets in a lawful divorce where I was found guilty of adultery, but then that would be just my choice...
Is flogging barbaric? You bet but it is their laws and until they change them and everyone else looks in the mirror I do not see much of a difference sometimes. Just to mention just one example chosing from a zillion - selling chemical weapons is far more barbaric than flogging and a few Western nations were only too happy to supply Iraq with them not too long ago - even knowing they would be used.
On August 24 2007 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: I'm all for nuking Iran now.
This (floggings & canings) has been happening across the world in other Muslim and non Muslim nations - but you will see more and more such news in the near future. If I were prone to believing in the intentional manipulation of public opinion I'd be a little wary with these kind of news in today's political climate. One could make an argument that it is precisely this sort of reaction that such news are intended for. The fact is that there are less and less nations that use this form of corporal punishment, and thus they come more and more to the attention of the rest of the world.
Still, however unjust you may think the Iranian justice system is, it is theirs, and you can find far worse human right abuses, in quality and quantity, in many other countries - a few considered civilized by western standards. Should they all be nuked?
Just to bring some perspective when it comes to human rights, on one of the most important rights:
On a relative scale the number of death penalty cases in Iran is only a little more than the number of death penalties in Texas - and the types of crimes that end up in death penalty is roughly the same, the worse cases of murder in both places with the exception of course of adultery in women - but then again anywhere between 1-5% of death penalties in the USA are people that have been wrongly blamed for a crime. i.e. innocent.
Crazy world we live in, but I like to think that over all, even with frequent setbacks, we are moving forward. Death penalty is less and less used, slavery is badly seen everywhere today and illegal almost everywhere, flogging is less and less used etc.. problem is we learn too slowly and in the meanwhile human injustice goes on..
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:59 Physician wrote: The number of death penalty cases in Iran is only a little more than the number of death penalties in Texas alone - and the types of crimes that end up in death penalty is roughly the same
They were only children.
|
On August 24 2007 11:59 Physician wrote: Speaking only of the current example I would rather go for a flogging than lose more than half my assets in a lawful divorce where I was found guilty of adultery...
Not if you were a broke motherfucker.
|
Well, in a nutshell:
1) crime and punishment re-affirms the moral boundaries of a society
2) the abhorrence of the crime strengthens in-group solidarity
Blaming the criminal (scape-goating) releases a social tension. In this case the 80 lashes is therapeutic for the on-looking men. They are teaching them what is right from wrong in THEIR society.
We can also say criminals are innovators because we learn from them.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 24 2007 12:09 Fab Abs wrote: Well, in a nutshell:
1) crime and punishment re-affirms the moral boundaries of a society
2) the abhorrence of the crime strengthens in-group solidarity
Blaming the criminal (scape-goating) releases a social tension. In this case the 80 lashes is therapeutic for the on-looking men. They are teaching them what is right from wrong in THEIR society.
We can also say criminals are innovators because we learn from them.
Basic misconception there. Inventors are innovators. They invent things. Criminals break the law. They steal, destroy, rape, murder, cheat etc.
I personally don't find watching pain being inflicted therapeutic. I recommend you speak to someone about that.
Crime reaffirms moral boundaries? Bullshit. I don't need to read in the news that someone was raped to know rape is wrong. I don't need to have my stuff stolen to know that stealing is wrong. Even if it did, the cost of educating people on morality would be far less than the saving if there was no crime.
Group condemnation of a crime is not a useful method of bonding in society. While I agree it exists it exists to exactly the same extent as any other subject people can agree on. I could equally say "the sky is blue, the people agree it is blue, they feel a sense of solidarity through this".
In short, the costs of crime greatly outweigh the advantages of it which to be honest were pretty tenuous.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
Kwark of course its wrong form our perspective. I too could post a endless list of photos showing human injustice but I preferred to just share my opinion rather than argue for the sake of arguing with everyone, most of which already agree with your values even though they taunt you. My point is that human injustice and human right abuse does not just happen in Iran, and that it is hard to judge another societies laws as wrong or unethical when civilized nations, by our standards, are doing equally worse shit, and I am not just talking about floggings or death penalty issues - thus I tried to add a wider perspective to the issue particularly to those that advocate nuking Iran (an even more barbaric measure).
- http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-eng "The USA carried out 19 executions – more than any other country." http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=203#execsus (but even the USA has moved forward on this issue, in 2005 their supreme court prohibited the death penalty in anyone below 18)
|
i may not have such deep point of views as you guys, but i have some thoughts about the matter: -first of all, yes the flogging might seem barbaric, but i might be ok on corporal punishment, after all, people doesnt understand through civilized way, but then again, should this be abused (propably would), we would live in a reing of terror. Public executions really make people frightened, which of course would reduce all crimes... remember vlad draculla times 
but of course, we have evolved, havent we?
|
On August 24 2007 11:50 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote: You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want. We find your entire society laughable. You're all so wound up about everything. The athiests are passionate athiests constantly watching for attacks on the separation of church and state. The gun lobby constantly fears that King George wants them to disarm. And you're all so damn proud of your constitution and your enshrined freedoms. If you all learnt to relax a little you'd not need any of it.
Good job getting defensive and saying something completely idiotic.
Thumbs up :D
|
On August 24 2007 12:52 Romance_us wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:50 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote: You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want. We find your entire society laughable. You're all so wound up about everything. The athiests are passionate athiests constantly watching for attacks on the separation of church and state. The gun lobby constantly fears that King George wants them to disarm. And you're all so damn proud of your constitution and your enshrined freedoms. If you all learnt to relax a little you'd not need any of it. Good job getting defensive and saying something completely idiotic. Thumbs up :D Poor kwark....so much stress on his birthday. He shouldn't post at all tomorrow.
+ Show Spoiler +learnt i lol'd (firefox 2.0 flagged it as misspelled)
|
Regarding the lashing and such, that seems totally ridiculous. I think what we should walk away from this with is a re-evaluation of what should be considered criminal acts, and why. Unless the guy actually caused harm to others, their property, or society, there's little reason to go nuts over it and lash him until his back turns into red jelly.
|
On August 24 2007 16:15 fight_or_flight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +learnt i lol'd (firefox 2.0 flagged it as misspelled)
My sixth grade English teacher took a point off of one of my papers for using '"learnt" instead of "learned." What a fucking bitch.
|
If its the same in America, ALL the dudes would have lashes and ALL the chicks would be dead. =/
|
On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote: I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please.
It's not our culture , it's the god damned religion , and the regime who forces it upon people.
I feel so embarrassed :/
god damn the arabs who forced this shit on us 1300 years ago :/
|
All countries suck except Belgium o.O :p
(ps im joking ... for the flamers out there)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
all countries are as silly as another. some people are possessed by silly trends, however, and in certain places people treat their national constructs seriously, which makes them silly too.
all in all you find silly people much more frequently in america than in europe. america is pretty backward.
|
Now would be the perfect time for ArmorVinc's 'AMERICA IS THE BACKBONE OF THE UNIVERSE' quote.
That's some wild shit though man.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 25 2007 00:39 Mindcrime wrote:My sixth grade English teacher took a point off of one of my papers for using '"learnt" instead of "learned." What a fucking bitch.
Indeed. Learnt is of course the correct English spelling with learned being the degenerate American version.
|
On August 25 2007 03:57 oneofthem wrote: all in all you find silly people much more frequently in america than in europe. america is pretty backward. If that's the north korean perspective, I'll take it as a compliment.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
imagine what they'd do to people like me in iran. i'd be lashed until my back was gone!
|
so this explains why theres not too much iranian porn
|
On August 24 2007 08:41 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:48 StripedBlueCrow wrote:On August 24 2007 07:36 Element)LoGiC wrote:On August 24 2007 07:27 Mora wrote: there's like 4 hot guys in that picture.
rock on. Photoshop circles around them. I WANNA SEE I only found two for sure, maybe three. Definitely not four. One of the masked men is too fat, the other one has potential. The one in the top left is a total badass.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On August 25 2007 04:11 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2007 03:57 oneofthem wrote: all in all you find silly people much more frequently in america than in europe. america is pretty backward. If that's the north korean perspective, I'll take it as a compliment. silliness. that's the martian perspective. it is not a hostile remark, just saying there are some pretty unprogressive areas in teh US. i lived in alabama and mississippi before, interacted wtih the local people and stuff.
|
who cares about ppl in the middle east, let them do whatever they want think whatever they want
|
|
you can not imagine how much lashings hurt. i feel really really bad for that guy
|
A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project.
North Korea has been under sanctions from the beginning, the additional sanctions raised last year in the UN were largely ineffectual. North Korea got everything it wanted from development of nuclear weapons: direct talks, unilateral and unconditional aid, diplomatic recognition and the relaxation of sanction and normalization of relations. Contrast this position with Libya, which dismantled its nuclear programme unilaterally and got fair words and next to nothing in compensation.
Iran is perhaps the middle-eastern country with the largest grass-roots individuality potential, reigning regime aside, belligerent language against it props up the nationalist agitators like Ahmadinjad, who would otherwise be seriously weakened politically by the economic inflation presently sweeping the country.
IMHO they still live 500 years back in time. when u think about it the Inquisition did exactly that and much worse in its days. whenever u let the church get power thats when the problems start.for good or for worse the concept of democracy is far from the minds of those people simply because of their religion .
That's either a very narrow definition of either religion or democracy. Tocqueville for one saw the flourishing of the Catholic religion in a democratic society. Never mind. Iran is not Afghanistan. The people are relatively forward and open-minded. Their way of life too, is closer to ours than say- the way of life in Saudi Arabia.
by definition people advocating for things like the death penalty for gays, prohibition etc are not 'mainstream' in the U.S. but that doesn't mean they don't exist or have considerable influence. look at Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for example.
Does anyone seriously listen to those quacks? If Bush cannot hold his own in congress, what chance would Pat Robertson have? Even in the puritanical settlements, when the laws of the colonies were literally plagiarised from Leviticus, the high civility of the New English colonists meant that few ancient laws have been applied as humanely as they were 400 years ago on American soil. The origin of America was puritanical (and there is still a puritanical streak in the spirit of the nation,) not barbaric.
|
I'll be honest. This is disgusting in our view, but we have to be tolerant of their culture.
|
United States43060 Posts
On August 29 2007 04:11 Wizard[pl] wrote: I'll be honest. This is disgusting in our view, but we have to be tolerant of their culture. Why? It's a repressive culture which denies basic human rights.
|
this is ridiculious.
However amazing.
|
wizard are u serious?that not a fucking culture...that picture shows you exactly what happens when there are no human rights.there is only god.
i call that FUCKED!
|
If a zerg came by and lashed your family, would you tolerate it?
HELL NO.
|
|
|
|
|