NationStates Jolt Archive

I just saw a National Geographic documentary on honour killings. It's so terrible, that even though I'm usually *very* much opposed to the "eye for an eye" philosophy, I think it might be appropriate in these cases. (i might take that back later on though, I just feel so angry at the moment! :mad: )

It's just so horrifying that men in certain countries feel that they can throw acid at women (usually relatives or wives) or disfigure them and/or kill them. The subject of the documentary was Zahida Perveen, a Pakistani woman, whose tongue, eyes, nose and ears were cut off by her husband, while she was 3 months pregnant.

Honour killings are terrible. Many laws protect men who kill to protect their family 'honour'...and even women who have been raped are often killed even though they were the victim. Many women from countries where honour killings are rife are working hard to repeal these protective laws, to get tougher sentences for those who commit these crimes, and are working to change the societal attitudes that foster this sort of violence. We should be supporting these efforts (and hopefully not blaming it on a certain religion and giving it up as a inevitable part of someone's culture).

I vote for the total elimination of the cultural/belief system(s) that promote/foster/approve of these sorts of things.

Period.

Forced sex change from male to female and forced to work as a prostitute for life with the funds going to facilities that provide women with education, birth control, and financial resources.

I vote for the total elimination of the cultural/belief system(s) that promote/foster/approve of these sorts of things.

Period.
I agree whole heartedly. Western culture must eradicate the barbaric practices that prevail in such backward parts of the world.

I remember recently reading a story about a girl in Iran who was stoned to death at the age of sixteen for being pregnant out of wedlock and thus a "whore".

She had been gang-raped.

And was mentally disabled.

I remember recently reading a story about a girl in Iran who was stoned to death at the age of sixteen for being pregnant and thus a "whore".

She had been gang-raped.

And was mentally disabled.
Yeah, but was she a whore? Let's not judge their culture by the standards of our own. It's unfair.

I hope you all know I was being sarcastic.

people shouldn't be killed in any circumstance. i don't think it's ever really justified.

I agree whole heartedly. Western culture must eradicate the barbaric practices that prevail in such backward parts of the world.

While I do not agree with elimination of the culture, I do agree that we should fight against the areas of it that promote this kind of thing.

While I do not agree with elimination of the culture, I do agree that we should fight against the areas of it that promote this kind of thing.
The good parts of their culture can be assimilated into their own style of western culture. Just like the USA, France, and Poland all have western culture but each with it's own particular flavor.

The West has a culture that makes it acceptable for some people to feed smoked salmon to their pets while just outside the wall is a homeless tramp starving. What is the fitting punishment for this? Nothing apparently.

Whilst, to our culture honour punishments are extreme, they are one of the bedrocks of the cultures that use them. There are cultural roles for individuals, that going outside of invokes punishment in any society. You or I may not agree with the role, nor the punishment, but it is not our society. Nor do we have a perfect idealised society as a basis to criticise theirs from.

Put our own house in order first, before trying to tell the rest of the world how they should live (or die).

I agree whole heartedly. Western culture must eradicate the barbaric practices that prevail in such backward parts of the world.
I read that once. Then I noticed who posted it and read it again. Then I laughed, when I would have howled:). Then I wasn't sure if I should do either.

Just to make sure, I'll do both.

Then I'll say: the West has no business imposing itself on these people. Trust me...there is serious and vocal and political opposition to these pracitices and that opposition will only be undermined by Western 'intervention'. INSTEAD of direct intervention, we should be making sure that people working for change are not 'disappeared' without comment from us, that we make sure those who are imprisoned for their work are accounted for, and that we not give into stereotypes and cultural judgments. (that is not me saying all cultural practices are equal and valid..that is me saying, don't assume our culture is the best thing for everyone.)

I'm waiting to see when the thread takes its inevitable turn toward blaming this on the US.

The good parts of their culture can be assimilated into their own style of western culture. Just like the USA, France, and Poland all have western culture but each with it's own particular flavor.

Exactly

hmmmm, i'd agree with not eliminating any cultures. Discrimination based on gender is not non-existant in Western culture (even if it's manifested in a less violent form). Maybe all cultures should move towards a more equality-promoting stance?

The West has a culture that makes it acceptable for some people to feed smoked salmon to their pets while just outside the wall is a homeless tramp starving. What is the fitting punishment for this? Nothing apparently.

Whilst, to our culture honour punishments are extreme, they are one of the bedrocks of the cultures that use them. There are cultural roles for individuals, that going outside of invokes punishment in any society. You or I may not agree with the role, nor the punishment, but it is not our society. Nor do we have a perfect idealised society as a basis to criticise theirs from.

Put our own house in order first, before trying to tell the rest of the world how they should live (or die).
We have welfare, progressive taxation, and minimum wages. They just need to be expanded so that they can actually provide the poor with decent shelter, food, and medical care. The framework for doing this exists. We just need to make it worlk.

Oh my children, calm down please. Enough of this talk about eradicating cultures, we have to respect other people cultures. After all, ours is no better then theirs, we don't have the right to judge them for what they believe just because they are different. Never mind judging people based on their actions, that is a archaic idea that needs to be forgotten as we enter a new era of kindness and equality. Now go play children, don't trouble yourself with these little things.

The West has a culture that makes it acceptable for some people to feed smoked salmon to their pets while just outside the wall is a homeless tramp starving. What is the fitting punishment for this? Nothing apparently.

Whilst, to our culture honour punishments are extreme, they are one of the bedrocks of the cultures that use them. There are cultural roles for individuals, that going outside of invokes punishment in any society. You or I may not agree with the role, nor the punishment, but it is not our society. Nor do we have a perfect idealised society as a basis to criticise theirs from.

Put our own house in order first, before trying to tell the rest of the world how they should live (or die).
Um, no. While I agree that we should not go rushing in waving our culture around in their general directions, we do NOT have to say that this practice is part of their culture and therefore valid. Neither do we have to support female genital mutilation. Some things are just WRONG. Now, we will have different opinions about what is wrong and what isn't. I don't think governments should get involved in this. Again, we need to support the efforts of people within these cultures that are struggling for positive changes. If that means joining Amnesty International, women's groups, charities, or pressuring politicians to question the punishment of these people who are working for change, then good. We can NOT dismiss them and say, "that's their culture, if they don't like it, they should move here".

We can both try to put our house in order, AND support those people who are doing the same in their own nations.

I read that once. Then I noticed who posted it and read it again. Then I laughed, when I would have howled:). Then I wasn't sure if I should do either.

Just to make sure, I'll do both.

Then I'll say: the West has no business imposing itself on these people. Trust me...there is serious and vocal and political opposition to these pracitices and that opposition will only be undermined by Western 'intervention'. INSTEAD of direct intervention, we should be making sure that people working for change are not 'disappeared' without comment from us, that we make sure those who are imprisoned for their work are accounted for, and that we not give into stereotypes and cultural judgments. (that is not me saying all cultural practices are equal and valid..that is me saying, don't assume our culture is the best thing for everyone.)
The west has every right to impose the best parts of it's culture on the rest of the world. Ideas of democracy, equality, and reward for hard work should be found in every corner of the world. We should work to perfect them here and spread them abroad.

I agree that we should help to protect the reformers overseas, but we must also give them concrete examples of what to work toward. A little cultural imperialism is a good thing.

The west has every right to impose the best parts of it's culture on the rest of the world. Ideas of democracy, equality, and reward for hard work should be found in every corner of the world. We should work to perfect them here and spread them abroad.

I agree that we should help to protect the reformers overseas, but we must also give them concrete examples of what to work toward. A little cultural imperialism is a good thing.

Ya cause they would still be cutting tourists hearts out every morning in Mexico other wise.

I'm waiting to see when the thread takes its inevitable turn toward blaming this on the US.
:rolleyes:

Does anyone here feel they could sit down and converse intelligently with a man who has cut off his wife's, ears, nose and tongue? Can you even begin to comprehend the barabaric savagery of butchering a human being in this fashion? Could you express to him that you think that is wrong and shouldnt be done and suddenly he will understand and start spreading the news to all his friends?
If you think you can make a difference, you're wrong. The society that this takes place in has to change itself. Outsiders-especially here in the US-will not be able to effectively change these practices without turning that society against us. Honour killings/mutilations, female circumcision-its happening all around the world. Its none of our business.

The west has every right to impose the best parts of it's culture on the rest of the world. Ideas of democracy, equality, and reward for hard work should be found in every corner of the world. We should work to perfect them here and spread them abroad.

I agree that we should help to protect the reformers overseas, but we must also give them concrete examples of what to work toward. A little cultural imperialism is a good thing.

Ideas of democracy, equality and reward for hard work aren't exclusive to the western world! :confused: :(

I support efforts to teach women in these "honourable" nations the arts of self-defense, and I would gladly fund organizations that arm women with any and every manner of weapon so that they can assert their freedom in a specific and violent manner. Something tells me that the cowardly men who would murder rape victims will lose interest in defending their "honour" the moment they realize that their targets are not helpless and cringing...men who would carry out these acts are the most pathetic breed of weakling, and if their victims are enabled to fight back the men will immediately turn tail and run.

Ideas of democracy, equality and reward for hard work aren't exclusive to the western world! :confused: :(
Ok, that's good. But the west is in a position right now to spread them. So we should get to work doing so.

The west has every right to impose the best parts of it's culture on the rest of the world. Ideas of democracy, equality, and reward for hard work should be found in every corner of the world. We should work to perfect them here and spread them abroad.

I agree that we should help to protect the reformers overseas, but we must also give them concrete examples of what to work toward. A little cultural imperialism is a good thing.
Then perhaps we should more seriously tackle the problem of violence against women in our own countries too.

I guess what I'm saying is, we have no right to INVADE countries and impose our culture. We can, and should suggest changes. Support changes. Applaud changes. However, I'd prefer to see a minimum of government involvement in this sort of thing (no black-op type contra crap thank you). Change is happening in these countries, and any sort of 'invasion' approach is just going to unite people AGAINST us and the people who themselves are trying to make things better there.

:rolleyes:

Hear, hear! I agree with you, Sinuhue

Honor Killings = Murder.

First, the word "honor" ("honour") should be removed when these things are reported. Anyone who thinks that their "honor", or anyones "honor", is worth more than someones life is NOThonorable, and does not deserve to have the word even mentioned when the murder is reported or discussed.

Second, the word "Dishororable" with reference to the murderers should be used to the extent possible when these murders are reported. Such as --- "X" is accused of dishonorably murdering his "Y". Details of this dishonorable crime are...

Third, these murders should carry the same punishment as any other murder. Which in my opinion should be life without any possibility of parol. And without anything but a small concrete block cell, an uncomfortable bunk, a toilet and sink, three bland meals a day, no snacks, no library, no tv, no writing material, no classes...nothing but a bare empty room and nothing at all to do. No time out in the yard, no job. NOTHING.

Fourth, any lawyer/barrister/attorney who attempts to use "honor" as a defense for murder should be disbarred, arrested, and tried for perjury.

Then perhaps we should more seriously tackle the problem of violence against women in our own countries too.

I guess what I'm saying is, we have no right to INVADE countries and impose our culture. We can, and should suggest changes. Support changes. Applaud changes. However, I'd prefer to see a minimum of government involvement in this sort of thing (no black-op type contra crap thank you). Change is happening in these countries, and any sort of 'invasion' approach is just going to unite people AGAINST us and the people who themselves are trying to make things better there.
I agree. We still need to tackle some issues at home. I also agree that an invasion is usually counterproductive. Still, we should use cultural imperialism to provide positive images through movies, music, television, books, etc. and use our economic might to reward nations that follow those examples. Perhaps even punish the nations that don't follow those examples through less favorable trade agreements, refusal of financial aid, etc.

I just saw a National Geographic documentary on honour killings. It's so terrible, that even though I'm usually *very* much opposed to the "eye for an eye" philosophy, I think it might be appropriate in these cases. (i might take that back later on though, I just feel so angry at the moment! :mad: )

It's just so horrifying that men in certain countries feel that they can throw acid at women (usually relatives or wives) or disfigure them and/or kill them. The subject of the documentary was Zahida Perveen, a Pakistani woman, whose tongue, eyes, nose and ears were cut off by her husband, while she was 3 months pregnant.
Your reaction is emotional. Honour killings are horrifying, but are they more horrifying than other types of murder? The punishment should be the same as it is for other types of murder. That is, über-tough jail sentences.

Then perhaps we should more seriously tackle the problem of violence against women in our own countries too.

Agreed...which is why I also support teaching self defense to every woman in America. My old roommate used to say, "if every would-be rapist or wife-beater knew that his target had the ability to shatter his kneecaps and rip off his testicles, you would see a great deal less rape and abuse."

Sure, it wouldn't solve the problem entirely, but I think it would go a long way to help.


I guess what I'm saying is, we have no right to INVADE countries and impose our culture. We can, and should suggest changes. Support changes. Applaud changes. However, I'd prefer to see a minimum of government involvement in this sort of thing (no black-op type contra crap thank you). Change is happening in these countries, and any sort of 'invasion' approach is just going to unite people AGAINST us and the people who themselves are trying to make things better there.
I would take it further; we should not have ANY economic or trade relations with nations that permit such injustices. None. They should not be permitted to purchase any goods from our nation, and we should not purchase any from theirs. We should do everything in our power to encourage our allies to cut trade relations with countries that permit such gross human rights violations.

They are free to have their culture, and to practice it as they will, but we should make our own stance crystal clear.

Your reaction is emotional. Honour killings are horrifying, but are they more horrifying than other types of murder? The punishment should be the same as it is for other types of murder. That is, über-tough jail sentences.

Yeah i realise that I'm emotional at the moment, note "(i might take that back later on though, I just feel so angry at the moment! :mad: )"

Your reaction is emotional. Honour killings are horrifying, but are they more horrifying than other types of murder? The punishment should be the same as it is for other types of murder. That is, über-tough jail sentences.
Meh I still like my forced sex-change and prostitution idea.

Your reaction is emotional. Honour killings are horrifying, but are they more horrifying than other types of murder? The punishment should be the same as it is for other types of murder. That is, über-tough jail sentences.

I think they are more horrifying because they are accepted.

In my opinion, someone who commits such a crime should get the highest punishment in the land, whatever that may be.

Your reaction is emotional. Honour killings are horrifying, but are they more horrifying than other types of murder? The punishment should be the same as it is for other types of murder. That is, über-tough jail sentences.
In many (if not most) cases, honour killings ARE more horrifying than other types of murder. This is partly due to the fact that they tend to be especially brutal; a bullet to the head may kill you just as dead as being stoned to death, but one is considerably more horrifying because of the extent of the suffering that precedes death. Being mutilated and tortured before being killed is considerably more frightening a prospect than (for example) being murdered by carbon monoxide poisoning. The method of a killing can add substantially to the horror, and I don't think that's entirely "emotional"...it's perfectly logical to be more horrified by extremely long, drawn out, and painful killings, since we would all prefer not to experience such pain and terror prior to our own deaths.

The added horror is that these "honour" killings are performed by the very individuals who should be protecting their victims, her father, brothers, husband, and even sons. Put it this way: if your mother were brutally murdered by a stranger it would be hideous and horrible and tragic, but how much more so would it be if she were murdered by your father and brother(s)? What if your wife were murdered by her brothers because they saw her speaking to another male without you present? and what if you were told that they would face no punishment at all, and that instead they would be applauded and congratulated for killing their own sister? Wouldn't the horror be somewhat greater, then?

I agree. We still need to tackle some issues at home. I also agree that an invasion is usually counterproductive. Still, we should use cultural imperialism to provide positive images through movies, music, television, books, etc. and use our economic might to reward nations that follow those examples. Perhaps even punish the nations that don't follow those examples through less favorable trade agreements, refusal of financial aid, etc.
Yeah, I support that. Sigh...even though I hate the term cultural imperialism...even though that's really what it is. I just have to remind myself that these nations are strong enough culturally to not lose their whole identity just because of Hollywood...

I don't believe people who commit these despicable so-called "honour" killings should be treated differently than any other murderer and they should face the same penalties - a long prison sentence.

Agreed...which is why I also support teaching self defense to every woman in America. My old roommate used to say, "if every would-be rapist or wife-beater knew that his target had the ability to shatter his kneecaps and rip off his testicles, you would see a great deal less rape and abuse."

Sure, it wouldn't solve the problem entirely, but I think it would go a long way to help.

Do what Whispering Legs does, give them guns and teach them how to use them. Teach them how to fight, train them to be equals. Nothing terrifies this brand of scum more then a equal.

Believe me it works.

I would take it further; we should not have ANY economic or trade relations with nations that permit such injustices. None. They should not be permitted to purchase any goods from our nation, and we should not purchase any from theirs. We should do everything in our power to encourage our allies to cut trade relations with countries that permit such gross human rights violations.

They are free to have their culture, and to practice it as they will, but we should make our own stance crystal clear.

I agree, this would make the UN useful. Doubt it will ever happen.

Do what Whispering Legs does, give them guns and teach them how to use them. Teach them how to fight, train them to be equals. Nothing terrifies this brand of scum more then a equal.

Believe me it works.

Well, I'm a person who simply doesn't like guns very much, so I prefer to learn other ways to take care of myself. I encourage anybody and everybody to learn the method(s) of self-defense that work best for them, though, and I certainly don't have a problem with women learning to use guns responsibly.


I agree, this would make the UN useful. Doubt it will ever happen.
And, of course, my wonderful country is more concerned with expanding our dependence on oil imports from "honourable" nations than we are with ensuring that our trade partners maintain at least a minimum standard of human rights. I love my country, but sometimes I feel obligated to advocate tough love for my country...

In many (if not most) cases, honour killings ARE more horrifying than other types of murder. This is partly due to the fact that they tend to be especially brutal; a bullet to the head may kill you just as dead as being stoned to death, but one is considerably more horrifying because of the extent of the suffering that precedes death.
Honour murders by no means have a monopoly on painful methods of death, especially not here in Europe where guns are not as commonly used.

The added horror is that these "honour" killings are performed by the very individuals who should be protecting their victims, her father, brothers, husband, and even sons. Put it this way: if your mother were brutally murdered by a stranger it would be hideous and horrible and tragic, but how much more so would it be if she were murdered by your father and brother(s)?
You have a point here, and in a court case I expect that the judge would take this into consideration when sentencing.

I would take it further; we should not have ANY economic or trade relations with nations that permit such injustices. None. They should not be permitted to purchase any goods from our nation, and we should not purchase any from theirs. We should do everything in our power to encourage our allies to cut trade relations with countries that permit such gross human rights violations.
This is one of the basic philosophies of the European Union. We only accept nations as members if they abolish the death penalty and clean up their human rights scene. A good example is Turkey.

The biggest threat to a government is if we have nothing to do with them at all.

I agree. We still need to tackle some issues at home. I also agree that an invasion is usually counterproductive. Still, we should use cultural imperialism to provide positive images through movies, music, television, books, etc. and use our economic might to reward nations that follow those examples. Perhaps even punish the nations that don't follow those examples through less favorable trade agreements, refusal of financial aid, etc.

Erm... the only thing we'll get across through movies, television, books and music is western culture at its most pathetic. Mass-market junk which does nothing to enrich the world at best, and is just offensive to the eyes and ears at worst. Please tell me how feeding them pop-music and hollywood movies is going to improve them? I don't think we should attempt to change their culture any more than is necessary by human morals. And western culture could afford to change that way too. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there are honour killings some places, immigrants sold into slavery in others. There's no blameless party in the world.

In many (if not most) cases, honour killings ARE more horrifying than other types of murder. This is partly due to the fact that they tend to be especially brutal; a bullet to the head may kill you just as dead as being stoned to death, but one is considerably more horrifying because of the extent of the suffering that precedes death. Being mutilated and tortured before being killed is considerably more frightening a prospect than (for example) being murdered by carbon monoxide poisoning. The method of a killing can add substantially to the horror, and I don't think that's entirely "emotional"...it's perfectly logical to be more horrified by extremely long, drawn out, and painful killings, since we would all prefer not to experience such pain and terror prior to our own deaths.
What is the purpose of the honour killing? It is to enforce and reinforce a code of conduct, a cultural standard that has been in existence for a very long time (much longer than anything we have in the West). As such it makes sense that it is particularly horrific and terrifying. This way it serves its purpose. To kill someone painlessly by lethal injection does not have the same impact. If, to enforce a code, you are going to take a life, then at least get the full propaganda and deterrent value out of this act. To kill someone who has broken the code humanely is to be hypocritical. Either make them suffer and use this as a warning, or do not kill them.

The added horror is that these "honour" killings are performed by the very individuals who should be protecting their victims, her father, brothers, husbands, and even sons. Put it this way: if your mother were brutally murdered by a stranger it would be hideous and horrible and tragic, but how much more so would it be if she were murdered by your father and brother(s)? What if your wife were murdered by her brothers because they saw her speaking to another male without you present? and what if you were told that they would face no punishment at all, and that instead they would be applauded and congratulated for killing their own sister? Wouldn't the horror be somewhat greater, then?

You are placing your cultural values on the act, which makes it incomprehensible. The cultures where this occurs, the honour killing is a response to "proven" betrayal by the victim of the killing. This proof may not meet the standards of the West, but it does meet their own standards. The betrayal is one that devalues the family, and al of its members. It would be like a member of any American family having supported and succoured one of the terrorists that commited the 9/11 attacks. (I am not comparing those attacks with adultery, I am comparing the social consequences of adultery in their culture with supporting such a terrorist in the USA.) As such the 'victim' has voluntarily excluded themself from any right to protection, support or help. They have made themselves an outcast, a pariah.

We do not have the right to judge their moral codes and the legal system that is involved with thius. We do have the right to say that we find it abhorrent, and to alter our behaviour accordingly. If you want to boycott the products of these regions than do so. We do not, however, have any right to threaten violence to make them change.

One aspect of their code that particularly bothersme, is the double standards on adultery. It is punishable by a horrific death for women, but tolerated for men. That I find wrong. If it is punishable then it has to be punishable for all. However that is my culture, not theirs.

Honour murders by no means have a monopoly on painful methods of death, especially not here in Europe where guns are not as commonly used.

I didn't claim they did, only that honour killings tend to be on the more brutal end of the murder spectrum.


You have a point here, and in a court case I expect that the judge would take this into consideration when sentencing.

Not in countries where they practice such killings, unfortunately.


This is one of the basic philosophies of the European Union. We only accept nations as members if they abolish the death penalty and clean up their human rights scene. A good example is Turkey.

The biggest threat to a government is if we have nothing to do with them at all.
Exactly. I don't want my nation to go around the world invading every nation that doesn't do things our way, but I do want us to put our money where our mouth is...if we say, "Golly, those honour killings are awful!" but then engage in trade with nations that allow such killings, what the hell is our objection worth to anybody? If a nation refuses to maintain basic human rights for ALL its citizens, we should refuse to have anything to do with them, including sending any form of foreign aid. Our only involvement should be in the form of support for organizations that help victimized populations escape to safer countries.

What is the purpose of the honour killing? It is to enforce and reinforce a code of conduct, a cultural standard that has been in existence for a very long time (much longer than anything we have in the West). As such it makes sense that it is particularly horrific and terrifying. This way it serves its purpose. To kill someone painlessly by lethal injection does not have the same impact. If, to enforce a code, you are going to take a life, then at least get the full propaganda and deterrent value out of this act. To kill someone who has broken the code humanely is to be hypocritical. Either make them suffer and use this as a warning, or do not kill them.

I completely understand how practical these killings are, by the standards of their culture. I have not at all disputed that.


You are placing your cultural values on the act, which makes it incomprehensible.

Incorrect. I am placing my cultural values in the picture, but it most certainly is not incomprehensible. There are numerous articles featuring interviews with individuals FROM THESE CULTURES who express horror and fear, who express the same sentiments I have about "honour" killings. These are individuals who lived their whole lives in cultures that traditionally practice honour killings, and often are individuals who specifically fled their homelands to escape such practices.


The cultures where this occurs, the honour killing is a response to "proven" betrayal by the victim of the killing. This proof may not meet the standards of the West, but it does meet their own standards. The betrayal is one that devalues the family, and al of its members. It would be like a member of any American family having supported and succoured one of the terrorists that commited the 9/11 attacks. (I am not comparing those attacks with adultery, I am comparing the social consequences of adultery in their culture with supporting such a terrorist in the USA.) As such the 'victim' has voluntarily excluded themself from any right to protection, support or help. They have made themselves an outcast, a pariah.

I don't understand what you are trying to do; your point originally seemed to be that our cultures are not comparable, yet now you are trying to draw a parallel that makes no sense. If an American family member supported those who participated in the terrorist acts of 9/11, we still wouldn't cut off their ears and burn them alive...it's a different culture entirely, so the comparison doesn't fly.


We do not have the right to judge their moral codes and the legal system that is involved with thius. We do have the right to say that we find it abhorrent, and to alter our behaviour accordingly. If you want to boycott the products of these regions than do so. We do not, however, have any right to threaten violence to make them change.

Why are you saying this to me? I have specifically and clearly stated that I don't advocate invasion of these countries or any such thing. I support complete economic distancing from any nation that does not meet our standards for human rights, but I don't advocate warfare on them at all. I support arming THEIR OWN PEOPLE, so that the victims of these crimes can have a fighting chance...if the men still value their "honour" then they may try to protect it as best they can. They simply will have to decide if they have the guts to try to "practice their culture" on women who are capable of self defense.


One aspect of their code that particularly bothersme, is the double standards on adultery. It is punishable by a horrific death for women, but tolerated for men. That I find wrong. If it is punishable then it has to be punishable for all. However that is my culture, not theirs.
I don't care whether it's "equal" or "unequal," it's all reprehensible. I respect their culture's right to exist, and their right to practice it in their own nation, but I no respect for that aspect of the culture. I'm not about to try to force them to adopt my culture, but I am going to help ensure that ALL members of their society get to have a voice in their "cultural practices." Something tells me that the victims of these abuses don't view their "culture" quite the same as the perpetrators, and I aim to give the victims their fair say.

Erm... the only thing we'll get across through movies, television, books and music is western culture at its most pathetic. Mass-market junk which does nothing to enrich the world at best, and is just offensive to the eyes and ears at worst. Please tell me how feeding them pop-music and hollywood movies is going to improve them? I don't think we should attempt to change their culture any more than is necessary by human morals. And western culture could afford to change that way too. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there are honour killings some places, immigrants sold into slavery in others. There's no blameless party in the world.
Some hollywood movies are great art. Some western music is revolutionary and wonderfull. Some TV programs are actually very good. They can show women as equals to men in society. They can show people of different races and religions working together or finding fair resolutions to their conflicts. Images like these would encourage reform.

Some hollywood movies are great art. Some western music is revolutionary and wonderfull. Some TV programs are actually very good. They can show women as equals to men in society. They can show people of different races and religions working together or finding fair resolutions to their conflicts. Images like these would encourage reform.
Yeah, but you'll have to toss in some images of boobies and explosions if you want to keep those films in business :P.

Some hollywood movies are great art. Some western music is revolutionary and wonderfull. Some TV programs are actually very good. They can show women as equals to men in society. They can show people of different races and religions working together or finding fair resolutions to their conflicts. Images like these would encourage reform.

And it's a shame America is currently obcessed with The Suffering of Others as Entertainment aka "Reality Shows." Until this bad habit goes away, America's detractors in those countries with abhorrent "customs" will simply bring those up as proof of America's hypocrisy and moral decadence. This is especially true in Islamic countries with ultra-puritannical philosophies where honor killings are more likely to occur.

Getting rid of horrible customs is like performing an exorcism; the one performing it must be as clean as possible or admit to their sins and atone for it or it won't be very successful at all.

Getting rid of horrible customs is like performing an exorcism...
I found this phrase funny, given the absolutely horrendous exorcism practics that have been employed across history :).

And it's a shame America is currently obcessed with The Suffering of Others as Entertainment aka "Reality Shows." Until this bad habit goes away, America's detractors in those countries with abhorrent "customs" will simply bring those up as proof of America's hypocrisy and moral decadence. This is especially true in Islamic countries with ultra-puritannical philosophies where honor killings are more likely to occur.


I dont think America should be involved. If we're bad guys for producing shows where nitwits eat bugs for money then so be it. I,personally am not obsessed with these shows, that have their origins in Europe. But to compare the moronic stunt shows and survivors to someone whom has butchered his wife or daughter in the name of honor is foolish. And those people eat bugs for free.

I completely understand how practical these killings are, by the standards of their culture. I have not at all disputed that.
Firstly, I was not attacking you Bottle. I was commenting on the point you made and placing some alternative perspective on it. I was emphasizing the practicality, not the horror.


Incorrect. I am placing my cultural values in the picture, but it most certainly is not incomprehensible. There are numerous articles featuring interviews with individuals FROM THESE CULTURES who express horror and fear, who express the same sentiments I have about "honour" killings. These are individuals who lived their whole lives in cultures that traditionally practice honour killings, and often are individuals who specifically fled their homelands to escape such practices.
The people in these interviews are people who have experience of a different culture and are those for whom this different culture seems better. I have personal experience of talking to female students from some of these countries that were in the UK at university. More than half saw nothing wrong with honour killing. It was a just punishment for the crime in their eyes. Remember that these were university students and therefore from the upper echelons of these societies. Those who will have the power to change things in the future. Surprisingly the male students were much more opposed to it. The majority of the men saw it as a hold over from a barbarous culture that was no longer necessary. This gives hope that such practices are going to die out, but only hope. Every culture will have its discontents, those who leave (flee in your emotive term) to avoid some aspect or other. This is as true of the USA, of the UK, of Western culture in general as it is of any other.

I don't understand what you are trying to do; your point originally seemed to be that our cultures are not comparable, yet now you are trying to draw a parallel that makes no sense. If an American family member supported those who participated in the terrorist acts of 9/11, we still wouldn't cut off their ears and burn them alive...it's a different culture entirely, so the comparison doesn't fly.
I was trying to find some activity that would provoke a similar loss of social standing in the USA as adultery does in rural India for example. You say that you would not cut off their ears or burn them alive, however the gut response of many would be to do something similar. This also goes back to the point about the hypocricy of killing without deterring. Aiding an enemy in time of war carries a death penalty throughout the west. Just we are too squeamish to make good propaganda use of such an execution. It is possible to compare emotional reactions, which is what I was trying to do.


Why are you saying this to me? I have specifically and clearly stated that I don't advocate invasion of these countries or any such thing. I support complete economic distancing from any nation that does not meet our standards for human rights, but I don't advocate warfare on them at all. I support arming THEIR OWN PEOPLE, so that the victims of these crimes can have a fighting chance...if the men still value their "honour" then they may try to protect it as best they can. They simply will have to decide if they have the guts to try to "practice their culture" on women who are capable of self defense.
I was supporting your earlier point concerning embargo, although this was not directed specificaly at you. I disagree with arming their people. that is direct interference. If they wish to arm themselves they will. You can not create, just by sending weapons, an attitude that would make these weapons useful. The victims are not likely to take up arms against the culture, without there being a major internal shift in opinion first.

I don't care whether it's "equal" or "unequal," it's all reprehensible. I respect their culture's right to exist, and their right to practice it in their own nation, but I no respect for that aspect of the culture. I'm not about to try to force them to adopt my culture, but I am going to help ensure that ALL members of their society get to have a voice in their "cultural practices." Something tells me that the victims of these abuses don't view their "culture" quite the same as the perpetrators, and I aim to give the victims their fair say.

In desiring ensuring that "ALL members" of their society have a say you are wanting to impose your culture. Having spoken to people who are potential victims and discovered that they found the practice to be fair, then I have no ground from which I can demand that they change their opinions.

I vote for the total elimination of the cultural/belief system(s) that promote/foster/approve of these sorts of things. Period.
Notice that I said "cultural/belief system" not "Culture". Two different things. There are cultural/belief systems (subcultures if you will) that exist that are antithetical to the human condition - to basic ethics and human rights. These unethical subcultures/belief systems (not the individuals, the SYSTEMS) need to be destroyed. Utterly. (From KKKers to Jihaadis and every Sect inbetween.)

I don't care whether someone thinks something is "moral" or not. Morality is frequently unethical. Ethical conduct deals with the Human condition. Morality deals with how you think you are best to achieve congress with your definition of the divine.

As a mater of Human Rights and the Defense of Self & Others, it is reprehensible to attempt to use the PC "moral equivilance" or "cultural equivilance" arguments to defend these henious acts against individuals. To do so implies we should accept wife-beating (spousal abuse) in certain lower SES western areas simply because "that's the way it's always been" and the women believe they "deserve it".

Some hollywood movies are great art. Some western music is revolutionary and wonderfull. Some TV programs are actually very good. They can show women as equals to men in society. They can show people of different races and religions working together or finding fair resolutions to their conflicts. Images like these would encourage reform.

Some Eastern and African movies are great art.
Lots of Eastern and African music is revolutionary and wonderful.
I'm willing to bet a lot of Eastern and African television programs are actually very good, and show women as equals to men in society, showing people of different races and religions working together or finding fair resolutions to their conflicts. However let's look at the opposite side.

Most hollywood movies are junk. An unescapable fact because they follow the market. And the market is powered by the lowest common denominator who pays to see the same movie, redone with better effects.
Most western music follows the exact same pattern, and if it doesn't, it isn't popular. Most western TV is equally worthless, and shows the same monotonous junk over and over again. Try it for yourself, flick it to the history channel. I'm willing to bet that either now, or on next, there will be a program on about the nazis. We've had fifty years to make all our documentaries about the nazis and they're still making them. Fifty years. Western culture does one thing well. Stagnate. Sure, the technology gets faster... but are we doing anything new? Hell no.

Of course, you could argue the same thing about Eastern and African culture, but I'll save you the effort. I know very little of their cultures, but I enjoy a few Asian movies, and I'm particularly fond of the Indonesian Gamelan, which is why I argued those points. I've yet to be convinced that I want to overwrite thousands of years of culture and replace it with mass produced filth, simply because there's a few sour elements, as, I say again, there is in western culture.

people shouldn't be killed in any circumstance. i don't think it's ever really justified.

Suppose a guy murdered fifty women, raped their corpses, drank their blood and ate their children. Then he proceeds to skin them and wear their faces like masks. After this, he is put into jail and an attempt is made to "re-educate" him. He seems to have become a productive member of society, but the day after he is released he cuts the left ears off of twenty-three random people in the street and mails them to the Governor of Wisconsin. He is put into jail, released after a period of time, and commits equally heinous acts. You're telling me this man should not be killed?

Suppose a guy murdered fifty women, raped their corpses, drank their blood and ate their children. Then he proceeds to skin them and wear their faces like masks. After this, he is put into jail and an attempt is made to "re-educate" him. He seems to have become a productive member of society, but the day after he is released he cuts the left ears off of twenty-three random people in the street and mails them to the Governor of Wisconsin. He is put into jail, released after a period of time, and commits equally heinous acts. You're telling me this man should not be killed?
If he's in the government's custody he's no threat to society. He can be imprisoned for life. Killing someone when he's no longer a threat is barbaric. Now if he was running an organization that advocated murder from his prison cell, perhaps you could argue that killing him is necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falhaar
I remember recently reading a story about a girl in Iran who was stoned to death at the age of sixteen for being pregnant and thus a "whore".

She had been gang-raped.

And was mentally disabled.


Yeah, but was she a whore? Let's not judge their culture by the standards of our own. It's unfair.

I hope you all know I was being sarcastic.

Uncalled for. And not even funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falhaar
I remember recently reading a story about a girl in Iran who was stoned to death at the age of sixteen for being pregnant and thus a "whore".

She had been gang-raped.

And was mentally disabled.


Yeah, but was she a whore? Let's not judge their culture by the standards of our own. It's unfair.

I hope you all know I was being sarcastic.

Uncalled for. And not even funny.
Ok, then how's this one. What's red, screams and goes 100 MPH in a circle? A baby in a blender.

..female circumcision-its happening all around the world. Its none of our business.but...what about Male circumcision? :confused:

Ok, then how's this one. What's red, screams and goes 100 MPH in a circle? A baby in a blender.
I'm only going to warn you once. I swear I will not speak to you again if you start another dead-baby episode.

I know why you posted it, but please choose another subject to make your point.

Uncalled for. And not even funny.
You need a lesson in satire. The opinion he was satirizing does in fact exist. It's called post-modernism, which says that no cultures (or cultural acts) are wrong.

I'm only going to warn you once. I swear I will not speak to you again if you start another dead-baby episode.

I know why you posted it, but please choose another subject to make your point.
Sorry Sinuhue, I just couldn't help myself.

Suppose a guy murdered fifty women, raped their corpses, drank their blood and ate their children. Then he proceeds to skin them and wear their faces like masks. After this, he is put into jail and an attempt is made to "re-educate" him...you are talking about the desert-Vampire...

You got it all wrong...he was not re-educated, he was arrested, Judged, condemned to death, stabbed by the relatives of the victims...and died in a blue nylon public execution

Justice was delivered.

You need a lesson in satire. The opinion he was satirizing does in fact exist. It's called post-modernism, which says that no cultures (or cultural acts) are wrong.
Ah... you mean Alien's position... :p

hmmmm, i'd agree with not eliminating any cultures. Discrimination based on gender is not non-existant in Western culture (even if it's manifested in a less violent form). Maybe all cultures should move towards a more equality-promoting stance?
ya think?

Ah... you mean Alien's position... :p

Not my position at all.

Any culture that does not try to impose its values on people who are not part of that culture can not, by definition be wrong, as wrong is generally a cultural value to start with.

However there are actions and behaviours that are wrong in a broader sense, as they are contrary to our nature as humans. This, of course depends upon your view of human nature, but that is less cultural than say sexual habits are. One of these is the imposition of beliefs by force. I hold this to be wrong under all circumstances (and counter productive as well).

Not my position at all.

Any culture that does not try to impose its values on people who are not part of that culture can not, by definition be wrong, as wrong is generally a cultural value to start with.
I would agree that "wrong" is a cultural value, because "wrong" is generally applied to a moral paradigm. Since Morality may best be described as Ethics modified by Dogma, "moral" positions often have little relationship to ethics of the action they are defining.

However there are actions and behaviours that are wrong in a broader sense, as they are contrary to our nature as humans. This, of course depends upon your view of human nature, but that is less cultural than say sexual habits are.
Violent actions taken against another human (being) for any reason other than self preservation (including, in the case of non-human animals, the gathering of sustenance/hunting) is unethical. Period. Any "cultural norm" that attempts to justify otherwise is doing just that - attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Those "norms" are therefore antitheitical to the human condition and should be eliminated.

One of these is the imposition of beliefs by force. I hold this to be wrong under all circumstances (and counter productive as well).
The imposition of beliefs by force is one of those pernicious sociatal norms that should be eliminated. However, in this context, you are attempting to justify ACTIONS that are the result of beliefs. The physical defense of self or others from violence is not the imposition of beliefs, it is the act of stoping agression/violence based upon belief.

See the difference?

Male circumsion does not involve scraping (not cutting, S-C-R-A-P-I-N-G) away the glans of the penis with a stone or a rusty razor blade. It leaves the woman (who is usually a seven year old girl when it was done) incapable of sexual pleasure for the rest of her life. It causes urinary tract infections, it causes the scarred tissue to rip during labor. In some practices, the vagina is sewn up with acacia thorns, causing urine and menstraul fluids to become trapped inside the woman, and the husband has to slice through the scarred, intertwined mess of the labia in order to have intercourse with his new bride on the wedding night. In most male circumcision, you don't get these problems.Thats the difference between male and female circumsision.

Male circumsion does not involve scraping (not cutting, S-C-R-A-P-I-N-G) away the glans of the penis with a stone or a rusty razor blade. It leaves the woman (who is usually a seven year old girl when it was done) incapable of sexual pleasure for the rest of her life. It causes urinary tract infections, it causes the scarred tissue to rip during labor. In some practices, the vagina is sewn up with acacia thorns, causing urine and menstraul fluids to become trapped inside the woman, and the husband has to slice through the scarred, intertwined mess of the labia in order to have intercourse with his new bride on the wedding night. In most male circumcision, you don't get these problems.Thats the difference between male and female circumsision.


so absolutely crude and barbaric.

so absolutely crude and barbaric.
Now who are we to judge? I mean our culture is just as bad as theirs in it's own way. Women in the west feel the need to diet and exercise in order to look like the women in fashion magazines. /sarcasm

Now who are we to judge? I mean our culture is just as bad as theirs in it's own way. Women in the west feel the need to diet and exercise in order to look like the women in fashion magazines. /sarcasm


The frustrating thing is that its not our place to judge. We can state our opinion, but have no right to try to change it. No matter how incredibly stupid it is to us. I'm sure a 7 yr old girl understands and enjoys the process. And probably even more special on the wedding night.

I would agree that "wrong" is a cultural value, because "wrong" is generally applied to a moral paradigm. Since Morality may best be described as Ethics modified by Dogma, "moral" positions often have little relationship to ethics of the action they are defining.
A description of ethics, not one I agree with, but that is a different discussion. I can work with it for now.

Violent actions taken against another human (being) for any reason other than self preservation (including, in the case of non-human animals, the gathering of sustenance/hunting) is unethical. Period. Any "cultural norm" that attempts to justify otherwise is doing just that - attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Those "norms" are therefore antitheitical to the human condition and should be eliminated.
Sorry, but violent action taken against another human being is part of almost all social and cultural systems. We do it in the West, they do it in the East, I believe it would be done by any human society anywhere. It is difficult to claim that an action that is so universal is unethical. Self preservation is too narrow. The preservation of the values of the society is also used, in all societies, to justify violence by the society against individuals. You may find this wrong, from your personal moral standpoint, but it is a fact of human society. There are also major questions about what constitutes violence against a person. Does it have to be physical? Is imprisonment a violent action? How about exile? etc.


The imposition of beliefs by force is one of those pernicious sociatal norms that should be eliminated. However, in this context, you are attempting to justify ACTIONS that are the result of beliefs. The physical defense of self or others from violence is not the imposition of beliefs, it is the act of stoping agression/violence based upon belief.

See the difference?

I am not actuallty attempting to justify anything. I am just criticising the knee jerk "it is not what we do so it's wrong" reaction that appeared immediately in this thread. I am contextualizing the action in the culture in which it takes place.

The physical defence of self or others from violence is the imposition of belief, whether you like it or not, by violent means. If you live in a culture, you are bound by the rules of that culture. If you wish to change the rules, violence is not an ethical way of doing this. Persuasion, argument etc. are fine, guns are not. Belief that does not result in action is meaningless. Now the action can be ethical or unethical. Here is where my dispute with your description of ethics and morality comes into play. To me ethics is about the functioning of a society, wheras morality is personal. An action can be ethical, whilst being immoral. Many people would claim this is the case with abortion for example. What I am claiming is that honour killing is ethical, in that it has a clearly defined and beneficial social purpose in the societies where it exists. It is however immoral for me. This means that I could not be a member of that society, nor could the majority here be. It does not mean that we have any right, duty, obligation, or responsability to try to change that society. In fact we have a duty to leave them to live their lives as they see fit, so far as they are not restricting our lives.

All very complicated and I appreciate that not everyone sees ethics and morals in the way I do. I do believe, however, that my position is at least internally consistant, and it providses me with a basis from which to judge something as being wrong, but to tolerate that others do not so judge the action, at the same time.

I agree whole heartedly. Western culture must eradicate the barbaric practices that prevail in such backward parts of the world.

:D

Um, no. While I agree that we should not go rushing in waving our culture around in their general directions, we do NOT have to say that this practice is part of their culture and therefore valid. Neither do we have to support female genital mutilation. Some things are just WRONG. Now, we will have different opinions about what is wrong and what isn't. I don't think governments should get involved in this. Again, we need to support the efforts of people within these cultures that are struggling for positive changes. If that means joining Amnesty International, women's groups, charities, or pressuring politicians to question the punishment of these people who are working for change, then good. We can NOT dismiss them and say, "that's their culture, if they don't like it, they should move here".

We can both try to put our house in order, AND support those people who are doing the same in their own nations.

I suppose we have to do something about male genital mutilation in the west too?

The frustrating thing is that its not our place to judge. We can state our opinion, but have no right to try to change it. No matter how incredibly stupid it is to us. I'm sure a 7 yr old girl understands and enjoys the process. And probably even more special on the wedding night.
You forgot your sarcasm/joking tags. I hope.

If not...you realise that many of these girls are held down, kicking and screaming by their relatives to undergo the procedure?

I suppose we have to do something about male genital mutilation in the west too?
I already have. I married an uncircumcised male, and will never have any sons I bear circumcised.

You forgot your sarcasm/joking tags. I hope.

If not...you realise that many of these girls are held down, kicking and screaming by their relatives to undergo the procedure?


YES!! I forgot to mention I was being terribly sarcastic. I understand the process and it sickens me. I would love to flip a switch to abolish it forever.

YES!! I forgot to mention I was being terribly sarcastic. I understand the process and it sickens me. I would love to flip a switch to abolish it forever.
Thanks. Sorry...it's just that you can't assume sarcasm on this forum...many people are dead serious. Hopefully not just dead, because that would be creepy. Serious...that I can deal with. Not dead.

A description of ethics, not one I agree with, but that is a different discussion. I can work with it for now.

Sorry, but violent action taken against another human being is part of almost all social and cultural systems. We do it in the West, they do it in the East, I believe it would be done by any human society anywhere. It is difficult to claim that an action that is so universal is unethical. Self preservation is too narrow.
Self preservation is more "universal" than institutionalized violence - it extends beyond humans. You have to have a narrow definition (low order abstraction) to to develop an unambiguous theory. Your statement makes no sense, because accepting it means that any violence, no matter how irrational (sacraficing babies to Moloch?) is "ethical".
The preservation of the values of the society is also used, in all societies, to justify violence by the society against individuals. You may find this wrong, from your personal moral standpoint, but it is a fact of human society.
Here is where I think you have your terms confused. The term "societal values" is equivilent to "morals" as both require development (e.g. modification from lower orders of abstraction). A categorical imperative requires no such development. (See the animal kingdom - don't bite me, I won't bite you - unless you are food and I am hungry.)
There are also major questions about what constitutes violence against a person. Does it have to be physical? Yes.
Is imprisonment a violent action? Depends.
How about exile? No.
I am not actuallty attempting to justify anything. I am just criticising the knee jerk "it is not what we do so it's wrong" reaction that appeared immediately in this thread. I am contextualizing the action in the culture in which it takes place. I know a lot of people who would like to "contextualize" a couple of genocides...
The physical defence of self or others from violence is the imposition of belief, whether you like it or not, by violent means.
Self defense (by violence when necessary) requires no belief system It inheres in all terrestrial life. Choosing to NOT defend oneself is acting on a belief system, but Nature does not curl up an die in the mere presence of physical danger... even a rabbit will fight if it cannot run.
If you live in a culture, you are bound by the rules of that culture. If you wish to change the rules, violence is not an ethical way of doing this. Persuasion, argument etc. are fine, guns are not.
I agree. I said the belief system must be destroyed. You cannot destroy a belief system with physical implements.
Belief that does not result in action is meaningless. Now the action can be ethical or unethical. Here is where my dispute with your description of ethics and morality comes into play. To me ethics is about the functioning of a society, wheras morality is personal. An action can be ethical, whilst being immoral.
I agree to the latter, but not the former. Two people without a "moral code" (ethics modified by Dogma) will still refrain from injuring each other. Ethics (and ethical codes) defines the rules of interpersonal relationships necessary to interact without being, or causing more harm than is necessary to survive (Harm Theory). Many have tried to equate ethics with the determination of "The Good", but "good" is a subjective term (and usually culturally/morally defined) it is too highly abstract a term to be used as the foundation for a categorical imperative. (To wit, Pol Pot thought it was 'good' (moral) to execute the intelligentsia and create a forced agrarian society. It damn sure wasn't ethical. Likewise, consentual sex is ethical, but its "morality" varies dramatically.)

Harm, on the otherhand, is a universal. All animals seek to diminish harm to themselves. No animal (other than humans) will put themselves in the way of greater harm than is absolutely necessary to survive. Harm then, is a low-order abstraction with universal "truth". Actions by humans that operate outside of this definition of harm are therefore modifications of the categorical imperative of "do least harm", and, by definition (ethics modified by dogma), (a)moral in nature.

Laws are sociatally applied moral codes. Many laws are ethical, many are not. All are "moral" within that larger society (though can be considered "immoral" by out-groups.)

Many people would claim this is the case with abortion for example. What I am claiming is that honour killing is ethical, in that it has a clearly defined and beneficial social purpose in the societies where it exists. It is however immoral for me. This means that I could not be a member of that society, nor could the majority here be. It does not mean that we have any right, duty, obligation, or responsability to try to change that society. In fact we have a duty to leave them to live their lives as they see fit, so far as they are not restricting our lives.
By this reasoning, even genocidal actions that are accepted by a society (a societal norm) should be accepted by humanity as a whole because "it's their culture". I don't buy it.

All very complicated and I appreciate that not everyone sees ethics and morals in the way I do. I do believe, however, that my position is at least internally consistant, and it providses me with a basis from which to judge something as being wrong, but to tolerate that others do not so judge the action, at the same time.
I don't care whether someone sees an action as "right or wrong". I worry about whether it is the institutionalized imposition of unnecessary (not required for personal survival) harm. Any form of mutilation, and most forms of capital punishment fit that criteria.

I just saw a National Geographic documentary on honour killings. It's so terrible, that even though I'm usually *very* much opposed to the "eye for an eye" philosophy, I think it might be appropriate in these cases. (i might take that back later on though, I just feel so angry at the moment! :mad: )

It's just so horrifying that men in certain countries feel that they can throw acid at women (usually relatives or wives) or disfigure them and/or kill them. The subject of the documentary was Zahida Perveen, a Pakistani woman, whose tongue, eyes, nose and ears were cut off by her husband, while she was 3 months pregnant.

Honor killings are sick and atrocious, and the countries where this is practiced should be urged to fight this barbarious and uncivilized behaviour.

Btw, usually i'm an opponent of death penalty, but people who do this deserve to die. :mad: