NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently King Abdullah has decided that newspapers should no longer show any pictures of women.

"One must think, do they want their daughter, their sister, or their wife to appear in this way. Of course, no one would accept this,"

Exactly Abdullah, nobody would stand for it. No other nation abuses their women in this disgracefull way. If women's photographs were shown in Western nations there would be hell to pay.

Women should be invisible. Either hidden behind heavy clothing or locked away in the home. Certainly not photographed for the whole world to ogle. After all, one shouldn't display his property so recklessly. He may inspire someone to steal it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_women

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?

Recently King Abdullah has decided that newspapers should no longer show any pictures of women.



Exactly Abdullah, nobody would stand for it. No other nation abuses their women in this disgracefull way. If women's photographs were shown in Western nations there would be hell to pay.

Women should be invisible. Either hidden behind heavy clothing or locked away in the home. Certainly not photographed for the whole world to ogle. After all, one shouldn't display his property so recklessly. He may inspire someone to steal it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_women
It would piss me off if my wife or daughter or sister were shown in a magazine. :mad: What if some perv saw it and started to jack off to her chin or cheek or something. :mad: Then I'd have to kill her for no fault of my own because she will have been a part of an act against Allah! (PBUH)

No time to be angry over this though, I have to go to the arena to watch the Miami Heat beat that swine you guys in New Jersey call the Nets.

GO HEAT! :D

Will you be watching DCD? Watching your team get beaten?

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?
Leftist? Hardly.

The Saudis enjoy living this way; otherwise there would be far more civil unrest than there is. Who are we to say that our way of life is any better?

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?
The thread starter is a lefty, I am a lefty and this sort of oppression against women is definitely not compatible with any left-wing agenda.

Leftist? Hardly.

The Saudis enjoy living this way; otherwise there would be far more civil unrest than there is. Who are we to say that our way of life is any better?
Liberal values cause less suffering, and promote more freedom, human rights and equality. Saudi ways distribute quality of life very unevenly. It is also bad economics. They refuse to harness the intelligence of their country's women for the good of their country.

No time to be angry over this though, I have to go to the arena to watch the Miami Heat beat that swine you guys in New Jersey call the Nets.

GO HEAT! :D

Will you be watching DCD? Watching your team get beaten?
I don't watch basketball. It's the most boring of all professional sports.

Leftist? Hardly.

The Saudis enjoy living this way; otherwise there would be far more civil unrest than there is. Who are we to say that our way of life is any better?
Well to be honest, we don't know if Saudi women enjoy it. They can't vote or speak their minds freely. I'm betting they don't. People are very similar. We share too many genes not to be. Nobody likes living as a virtual slave.

I don't watch basketball. It's the most boring of all professional sports.
coughbaseballcough

Women should be invisible. Either hidden behind heavy clothing or locked away in the home.

Women shouldn't be invisible. Only the Invisible Pink Unicorn is allowed to be invisible.

Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves.

Authoritarianism strikes again.

coughbaseballcough
Far, far better than basketball.

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?

I for one agree. I find it ridiculous how the Left has elevated Islam (not to mention my other petpeeve punk rock) to sacred cow status. Since when does Islam fit into the goals of socialism?

Well to be honest, we don't know if Saudi women enjoy it. They can't vote or speak their minds freely. I'm betting they don't. People are very similar. We share too many genes not to be. Nobody likes living as a virtual slave.
It isn’t about genes. It’s about your experiences. Why do some Muslim women in the US continue to practice the restrictive practices of their religion when there are no laws forcing them to? It’s because that’s how they were raised. To live any way else would be unthinkable to them.
Liberal values cause less suffering, and promote more freedom, human rights and equality.
All of these things are not highly valued in Saudi culture and some of them are actually despised. Your statement is of no consequence.
Saudi ways distribute quality of life very unevenly.
As does ours. As does every society on some level. Inequality is the way of the world.
It is also bad economics. They refuse to harness the intelligence of their country's women for the good of their country.
It may be bad for their economy, but that is their choice as a society. They are content living as they do.

I for one agree. I find it ridiculous how the Left has elevated Islam (not to mention my other petpeeve punk rock) to sacred cow status. Since when does Islam fit into the goals of socialism?
Outright anti-capitalism is by definition irrational. It only stands to reason that its followers would be unreasonable as well.

As for those who advocate damaging economic polices on either end of the petty political spectrum, they tend to be irrational and driven by ideology and thus either revulsion toward or worship of contemporary icons is understandable.

It isn’t about genes. It’s about your experiences. Why do some Muslim women in the US continue to practice the restrictive practices of their religion when there are no laws forcing them to? It’s because that’s how they were raised. To live any way else would be unthinkable to them. It's about the geneteic drive to observe the rules of their culture and remain a part of their social group. Still, in the USA observant Christian women fought for sufferage. Everyone wants a say. Everyone wants better status in the society. That's genetic.



All of these things are not highly valued in Saudi culture and some of them are actually despised. Your statement is of no consequence. It's of great consequence when you accept that humans cannot be conditioned to enjoy slavery and servitude. Human nature just isn't that malleable.



As does ours. As does every society on some level It's the way of the world.

It may be bad for their economy, but that is their choice as a society. They are content living as they do. The men are content. We don't know if the women are, they can't speak their minds or vote.

The reason some people follow restrictive rules by choice is that a large proportion of humans, by nature seem to like conformism. Unfortunately, nonconformists are often forced to behave in a certain way by conformists.

Outright anti-capitalism is by definition irrational. It only stands to reason that its followers would be unreasonable as well.

As for those who advocate damaging economic polices on either end of the petty political spectrum, they tend to be irrational and driven by ideology and thus either revulsion toward or worship of contemporary icons is understandable.

Personally, I couldn't care less if my desire to break free conflicts with reason. The desire to live for its own sake does not follow from any rational principle.

It's about the geneteic drive to observe the rules of their culture and remain a part of their social group. Still, in the USA observant Christian women fought for sufferage. Everyone wants a say. Everyone wants better status in the society. That's genetic.
No. That is the result of hundreds of years of what we in the Western world have dubbed the Enlightenment. The Middle-East has had no such revolution of ideas and they will not as long as Western powers continue to array themselves against Islam, thus encouraging the popularity of terrorism.
It's of great consequence when you accept that humans cannot be conditioned to enjoy slavery and servitude. Human nature just isn't that malleable.
Sure it is.
The men are content. We don't know if the women are, they can't speak their minds or vote.
You don't know if they aren't either.

Personally, I couldn't care less if my desire to break free conflicts with reason.
Well, you better hope that everyone else on earth (or at least the vast majority) wishes to “break free” at the same time as you, in the same manner. Otherwise, you are doomed to repeat the failures and perversions of your movement’s past.

Morally, I support, Laissez-faire capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that it’s practical or good for society and ultimately me. So, I could never support a politician or movement that advocated it. I have reality to think about.

Outright anti-capitalism is by definition irrational. It only stands to reason that its followers would be unreasonable as well.
You're mixing up your definitions here. Rationalism is the basis of capitalism. The "street" definition of reason equates it with logic and making sense. However, just because some ideas are irrational, does not mean that they don't make sense. Socialism may have a different basis than rationalism, but it still can make sense, and be presented with logical, consistent argument.

It isn’t about genes. It’s about your experiences. Why do some Muslim women in the US continue to practice the restrictive practices of their religion when there are no laws forcing them to? It’s because that’s how they were raised. To live any way else would be unthinkable to them.
Their culture forces them to, and very few indeed live as strictly as Saudi women are forced to.

All of these things are not highly valued in Saudi culture and some of them are actually despised.
That's why we are more civilised than them.

As does ours. As does every society on some level. Inequality is the way of the world.
I didn't say our society was perfect. Your post highlights that we have a long way to go. But we are still more equal than Saudi Arabia.

You're mixing up your definitions here. Rationalism is the basis of capitalism. The "street" definition of reason equates it with logic and making sense. However, just because some ideas are irrational, does not mean that they don't make sense. Socialism may have a different basis than rationalism, but it still can make sense, and be presented with logical, consistent argument.
Oh, of course. The average pure socialist makes far more sense than a conservative. That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, just like economic libertarianism.
Their culture forces them to, and very few indeed live as strictly as Saudi women are forced to.
But some still do.
That's why we are more civilised than them.
Ethnocentric bull. By what standard. Yours?
I didn't say our society was perfect. Your post highlights that we have a long way to go. But we are still more equal than Saudi Arabia.
So how is a women being forced to work by economic conditions any worse than a women being forced to stay in the home by relgious law?

No. That is the result of hundreds of years of what we in the Western world have dubbed the Enlightenment. The Middle-East has had no such revolution of ideas and they will not as long as Western powers continue to array themselves against Islam, thus encouraging the popularity of terrorism.

Sure it is.

You don't know if they aren't either.
No, according to modern sociobiology human nature isn't really all that malleable. A good book on the subject is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.

I can be fairly certain that they aren't. As soon as violence to keep women in line began to slip into social unacceptability in western civilization women began to step up and demand their rights. To me that suggests that they didn't like second class citizenship and as soon as they could protest against it without being smacked across the mouth they did so.

I can be fairly certain that they aren't. As soon as violence to keep women in line began to slip into social unacceptability in western civilization women began to step up and demand their rights. To me that suggests that they didn't like second class citizenship and as soon as they could protest against it without being smacked across the mouth they did so.
Merely social evolution. You're like a frog criticizing a newt because he doesn't hop, even though he gets along just fine.

Merely social evolution. You're like a frog criticizing a newt because he doesn't hop, even though he gets along just fine.
Nope. I'm not. We're not talking about frogs and newts, we're talking about a single species without too much genetic diversity. There is way too much evidence for the existence of human nature for it to be dismissed so easily. If human nature exists, then it's likely that if one group of humans dislikes living as second class citizens the preference for first class status exists in all other groups of humans. Kind of like the preference for certain types of art (savanah-like landscapes with water present, pictures of heroic people and/or children) seems to exist in all populations.

Seriously, check out Pinker's book. I don't have it in front of me, but after reading it it becomes pretty hard to maintain the idea that there is no human nature.

Seriously, check out Pinker's book. I don't have it in front of me, but after reading it it becomes pretty hard to maintain the idea that there is no human nature.
Sure, human nature exists, but gender roles are entirely arbitrary. Just look at tribe in South America. How is one culture's better than another?

Sure, human nature exists, but gender roles are entirely arbitrary. Just look at tribe in South America. How is one culture's better than another?
No they're not. That's insane. Genetically male children with genital abnormalities were routinely given vaginas through "reconstructive" surgery in the past. They were raised as girls because "gender roles are just a social construct". A large majority of them spontaneously identified themselves as male during childhood, prefered traditionally male toys and types of play over traditionally female ones, and many eventually got sex changes back to male when they were old enough.

One culture is better than another in that it fits better with the normal drives produced by human nature.

Oh, of course. The average pure socialist makes far more sense than a conservative. That doesn't mean that their ideas will work, just like economic libertarianism.
Rationalism is separate from pragmatism. Extremes of any ideology rarely, if ever work out in reality. One example of where rationalist capitalism fails is that the philosophy dictates that humans are just like products (inanimate objects for sale), with a flexible value. While in reality, humans are blatantly not like products.

But some still do.
That's because their families and religious organisations put them under great pressure to conform. If the majority from this background choose freedom when the law in the west allows them to, why do you think that most of the women of Saudo Arabia would not choose it, if given a choice?

Ethnocentric bull. By what standard. Yours?
Suffering is bad, pleasure is good. How can you argue against that?

So how is a women being forced to work by economic conditions any worse than a women being forced to stay in the home by relgious law?
At least she's subject to the same economic conditions as everyone else.

Merely social evolution. You're like a frog criticizing a newt because he doesn't hop, even though he gets along just fine.
Yet the frog is better equipped to escape from predators.

While in reality, humans are blatantly not like products.

How? How are humans not like products?

Suffering is bad, pleasure is good. How can you argue against that?

And yet I can recall some religious objections to hedonism...

How? How are humans not like products?
They are alive, have emotions, have sentience, and a thousand other incredibly obvious reasons.

And yet I can recall some religious objections to hedonism...
And they're probably bullshit just like this Saudi Muslim gibberish.

Yet the frog is better equipped to escape from predators.

They can each get away from their own predators as well as they need to survive.

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?


I agree.

Backward savages who treat women like cattle.

As hokie says....

(imagine picture of R.Lee Ermey)

"F*CKING SAVAGES!"

They are alive, have emotions, have sentience, and a thousand other incredibly obvious reasons.

And you have reason to believe those a relevant distinctions?

And they're probably bullshit just like this Saudi Muslim gibberish.

Congratulations. You just made your argument circular.

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?

I certainly expect nothing less from these conservative people in Saudi Arabia

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?

Actually, you're safe. It's the neocon Christian Reich who agree that women should be put in their place, not us Leftist whack-jobs.

Incidently, have we asked what the women of Saudi think? Oh wait .... they're not allowed to think ... never mind.

Rationalism is separate from pragmatism.
A rational person is more prone to being pragmatic.
Extremes of any ideology rarely, if ever work out in reality.
That's what I said.
One example of where rationalist capitalism fails is that the philosophy dictates that humans are just like products (inanimate objects for sale), with a flexible value. While in reality, humans are blatantly not like products.
No argument here.
That's because their families and religious organisations put them under great pressure to conform. If the majority from this background choose freedom when the law in the west allows them to, why do you think that most of the women of Saudo Arabia would not choose it, if given a choice?
That's the point. Because of their background, they are happier that way.
Suffering is bad, pleasure is good. How can you argue against that?
What is suffering to one person is pleasure to anther.
At least she's subject to the same economic conditions as everyone else.
Nope. Inheritance, skin color, sexual orientation, all play a role.
No they're not. That's insane. Genetically male children with genital abnormalities were routinely given vaginas through "reconstructive" surgery in the past. They were raised as girls because "gender roles are just a social construct". A large majority of them spontaneously identified themselves as male during childhood, prefered traditionally male toys and types of play over traditionally female ones, and many eventually got sex changes back to male when they were old enough.
Sorry, but all the psychological evidence is against you. The parents of those cross-gendered individuals must have sub-consciously treated them like boys.
One culture is better than another in that it fits better with the normal drives produced by human nature.
What is "normal?" Please define these "drives" along with some evidence that they are equally valued by all peoples in all cultures.

And you have reason to believe those a relevant distinctions?

Their relevancy is subjective. They are, however, real differences.

Saudi Arabia really needs to wise the fuck up.

Saudi Arabia really needs to wise the fuck up.

Aye ... good luck with that. Men in power have always been the same, regardless of culture or whatever. In the end, they are governed by their penis.

Aye ... good luck with that. Men in power have always been the same, regardless of culture or whatever. In the end, they are governed by their penis.
Well, I didn't really expect them to read a post on an obscure internet forum and change their entire legal and social system, but I know what you mean :p

Bloody men...

It's ridiculous, though, that the 'civilised' countries of the world haven't done anything in places like Saudi Arabia, or at least tried.

Of course, they have oil, so we shouldn't expect anybody to say anything.

Well, I didn't really expect them to read a post on an obscure internet forum and change their entire legal and social system, but I know what you mean :p

Oh they might! If the NSA can record my votes for Taylor on American Idol, surely the Saud family can read NS General. :D

It's ridiculous, though, that the 'civilised' countries of the world haven't done anything in places like Saudi Arabia, or at least tried.

I'm with you ... I've been saying it all along ... Saudi Arabia is the enemy ... maybe Pakistan, but that's still conjecture ... we should ignore Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea and hit Saudi.

Free Mecca! Free Mecca!

*sigh*

Nobody will listen to me .... :( ... I am sad now.

Oh they might! If the NSA can record my votes for Taylor on American Idol, surely the Saud family can read NS General. :D

Well, who knows? Maybe they'll listen and do what we tell them. Hopefully.



I'm with you ... I've been saying it all along ... Saudi Arabia is the enemy ... maybe Pakistan, but that's still conjecture ... we should ignore Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea and hit Saudi.

Free Mecca! Free Mecca!

*sigh*

Nobody will listen to me .... :( ... I am sad now.

Well, I would go after Iran on human rights grounds, and Turkey as well on the same grounds. Purely on human rights grounds; let them pursue nuclear weapons if they want.

You know, there was an article in the Sunday Times Magazine at the weekend about how young women in areas of Turkey are forced to commit suicide if they do things to 'dishonour the family'. Disgraceful things like, you know, looking too long at a man, or wearing too short a skirt.

Fucking ridiculous. They're the real problems in the world, not whether the President of Iran quite fancies the idea of becoming a nuclear power.

My list is (in no particular order)
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Zimbabwe
North Korea
Sudan

They would do for now.

My list is (in no particular order)
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Zimbabwe
North Korea
Sudan

They would do for now.
I assume you have the assurances of the populaces of those nations that they are willing to sacrifice the life and property necessary to become the way you want them to be, then?
No? That’s what I thought.

Fact is, some of those nations listed love their governments, and the ones that don’t, hate the West more, but go ahead and continue being a paternalistic simpleton. I mean, surely our civilization is perfect and simply must serve as an avatar of truth and justice to those poor savages. Oh, the white man’s burden is so… burdensome.

I assume you have the assurances of the populaces of those nations that they are willing to sacrifice the life and property necessary to become the way you want them to be, then?
No? That’s what I thought.

Fact is, some of those nations listed love their governments, and the ones that don’t, hate the West more, but go ahead and continue being a paternalistic simpleton. I mean, surely our civilization is perfect and simply must serve as an avatar of truth and justice to those poor savages. Oh, the white man’s burden is so… burdensome.

Haha...where did I say anything about sacrificing life and property? All my list is is a list of countries that, in my opinion, really need a good kick up the arse and a shove on the way to respecting human rights.

Nothing about the 'white mans burden' or any of that bullshit, it's about trying to achieve and guarantee the majority of people in those nations the basic human rights they've been denied for decades.

The idea that our government's are so focused on issues like Iranian nuclear development and aren't doing enough to try and help people whose governments oppress them and deny them the freedoms of speech, conscience (or at least try to), and association sickens me.

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?
No, what you are going to get flamed for however is for being an ignorant bigot that is contributing to the division of this country along an imaginary party line splitting people who can't think for themselves from people who they are told to hate.

Haha...where did I say anything about sacrificing life and property? All my list is is a list of countries that, in my opinion, really need a good kick up the arse and a shove on the way to respecting human rights.

Nothing about the 'white mans burden' or any of that bullshit, it's about trying to achieve and guarantee the majority of people in those nations the basic human rights they've been denied for decades.

The idea that our government's are so focused on issues like Iranian nuclear development and aren't doing enough to try and help people whose governments oppress them and deny them the freedoms of speech, conscience (or at least try to), and association sickens me.
And what actions would you take that would have any really affect that are not going to harm the very people you are trying to "help." (I've yet to see any evidence that the majority of people in these countries are unhappy with their governments.)

And what actions would you take that would have any really affect that are not going to harm the very people you are trying to "help."
I don't know what I would do, to be honest, and that's why I'm just posting on an internet forum instead of doing something about it.

(I've yet to see any evidence that the majority of people in these countries are unhappy with their governments.)

Well, that's hardly a surprise, seeing as the majority of people in those countries don't generally get the opportunity to post on the internet.

Anyhow, what the majority wants comes second to the rights of minorities, in my opinion.

I don't know what I would do, to be honest, and that's why I'm just posting on an internet forum instead of doing something about it.
Tons of complaints and no solutions.
You’re starting to sound like an American “liberal”.
Anyhow, what the majority wants comes second to the rights of minorities, in my opinion.
Then perhaps you should look a little closer to home, first.
And you're the one who said she wanted to make things okay for the majority of people, not me.

Tons of complaints and no solutions.
You’re starting to sound like an American “liberal”.

Whatever. Sometimes we don't have the solution to life's problems, no matter how apparent they may be.

Just because I don't have the answer doesn't mean the problem is any less real.

Then perhaps you should look a little closer to home, first.

Why would I want to look closer to home? The rights of minorities in Northern Ireland are quite well looked after by the Equality Commission, although one or two things could be done to improve its work.

And you're the one who said she wanted to make things okay for the majority of people, not me.
Yup, and in several, in fact most, of the countries I listed the majority don't have the rights they should.

In one or two of them, the majority have some rights, but the minority don't.

I dont think calling people savages or telling a nation to wise the fuck up is productive.

As it happens to many Saudi Arabian people, Prince Abdullah is advocating respect for women with his statements (about publishing female images).
If you just want to poke a stick at someone then I guess it doesnt matter, but if you actually are honestly interested then it's essential to understand - and you dont understand by dismissing 'people' as 'savages'.

Even though some people stand to gain and loose, and not all motives are equal, the fact is there are many people (including many Saudi Arabian people) who genuinely believe that their world view is right, and this world view includes the belief that respect for women (and family honour) requires that women be sequested away from harm by seclusion within the kin-group.

Actually, you're safe. It's the neocon Christian Reich who agree that women should be put in their place, not us Leftist whack-jobs.

Incidently, have we asked what the women of Saudi think? Oh wait .... they're not allowed to think ... never mind.

Oh please, I have never, EVER, heard a neo conservative say that women need to be slaves.

No, what you are going to get flamed for however is for being an ignorant bigot that is contributing to the division of this country along an imaginary party line splitting people who can't think for themselves from people who they are told to hate.

Ugh, where the hell did you get all that from? :confused:

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?
By us?

Fuck no we are the ones trying to fight for equality

By us?

Fuck no we are the ones trying to fight for equality

Yes, but it just so happens that the left are the ones always sticking up for Muslims.

Yes, but it just so happens that the left are the ones always sticking up for Muslims.
Most of the time only when people are being discriminitory asshats

Most of the time only when people are being discriminitory asshats

That may be.

But what about the whole situation with theocratic muslim Iran trying to go for Nuclear weapons.

For the most part its lefties sticking up for him, saying that he can do what he wants.

Most of the time only when people are being discriminitory asshats

Lefties are also the ones that stick up for muslims by saying, there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. There is only different cultures, and they are all equally acceptable.

It's bullshit.

Yes, but it just so happens that the left are the ones always sticking up for Muslims.
That's because a majority of the people complaining against Muslims assume that Muslims have a giant hive-mind and are always thinking the exact same time

so.. if there was to be an entire army of hot strippers that march across saudi arabia naked or close to it. would most of the men have heart attacks from the shock?

Lefties are also the ones that stick up for muslims by saying, there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. There is only different cultures, and they are all equally acceptable.

It's bullshit.
Ohhh just because I find their actions personaly wrong right and wrong are subjective

If this is how they choose to operate their society so be it ... but I would be the first one trying to offer aid when people want to get out

Lefties are also the ones that stick up for muslims by saying, there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. There is only different cultures, and they are all equally acceptable.
Hey, I am not a leftist, and I think that way.

Hey, I am not a leftist, and I think that way.

I know. And I kept that in mind when I made the post that came before the one you quoted, saying its mostly the leftists who.....ect....about Iran.

<snip> Allah! (PBUH)

Just an FYI, PBUH, SAW etc are used for mortals (usually Mohammed and some Imams) not Allah. He gets "the most merciful, the most benevolent" or some such thing...

Saudi women should serve two main purposes:

1. To serve as punchbags so that the Saudi men can hone their fighting skills.
2. Making more Saudi men.

Aside from that and the occasionally glossy photoshoot in Purda weekly women serve no discernable function and are best kept in the home so as to improve their flexibility and availability regarding functions 1 & 2.

The Saudis enjoy living this way; otherwise there would be far more civil unrest than there is. Who are we to say that our way of life is any better?
I refuse to accept the implicitly racist assertion that Arabs enjoy tyranny. Our way of life -- what Ronald Reagan called "This way of freedom of ours" -- IS better.

Hey, I am not a leftist, and I think that way.

On Sunday the August 15th 2004, a 16 year old girl was sentenced to death for acts incompatible with chastity (having sex with her boyfriend). Generally in Iran an execution will either involve a hanging, or the "guilty" party being buried up to their shoulders and then having rocks hurled at their head until they are dead. If the "criminal" is a woman then they will often be raped prior to the execution so that they will not enter the next life as virgins and will not enter heaven.

Is this an example of cultural relativism? Or is it just plain fucking wrong.

Actually, you're safe. It's the neocon Christian Reich who agree that women should be put in their place, not us Leftist whack-jobs.

"Their place" apparently being the President's personal staff, the National Security Council and the Departments of State, Interior, Labor, Education...This nonsense about a mysoginist 'neoncon Christian conservative conspiracy' is precisely that -- nonsense; moronic far-left drivel without the slightest trappings of a basis in reality or common sense.

I have to say that the implicit accusation of fascist anti-Semitism is refreshingly imbecilic, given that President Bush employed Paul Wolfowitz as Undersecretary of Defense before seeing his elevation to President of the World Bank, Richard Perle as the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committeem, and David Frum as an economic speechwriter -- and considering that he's the most unadbashedly pro-Israel president since Ronald Reagan and the first U.S. president to celebrate Hannukah.

Yes, but it just so happens that the left are the ones always sticking up for Muslims.
Too bad none of them actually want to do anything to help Muslims...

You know, there was an article in the Sunday Times Magazine at the weekend about how young women in areas of Turkey are forced to commit suicide if they do things to 'dishonour the family'. Disgraceful things like, you know, looking too long at a man, or wearing too short a skirt.
That happens in almost every Muslim country. They all have at least a few ultra-conservative rural communities.

Yes, but it just so happens that the left are the ones always sticking up for Muslims.
Not all Muslims are the same. The left tends to support harmless Muslims facing undeserved condemnation. The Saudis are not harmless.

Lefties are also the ones that stick up for muslims by saying, there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. There is only different cultures, and they are all equally acceptable.

It's bullshit.
That's moral relativism, not socialism or any other left-wing ideology. Undelia is advocating this relativism here and he is not left-wing.

If this is how they choose to operate their society so be it
How can you say that when there is so much deliberately caused suffing in their society?

Leftist? Hardly.

The Saudis enjoy living this way; otherwise there would be far more civil unrest than there is. Who are we to say that our way of life is any better?

So you are saying that a medieval theocratic kingdom is the way to go?

So you are saying that a medieval theocratic kingdom is the way to go?

If in the process of 'modernising' them, you bring untold amounts of damage and chaos, it's better to leave them alone.

Look at what happened when the Aztecs for example. Or the native Americans. Or the aboriginal Australians. They were viewed as uncivilized and needed to be modernized. Look at what happened to them in the process. Nothing but bloodshed, disease, violence and near extinction.

And that's the better way?

Lefties are also the ones that stick up for muslims by saying, there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. There is only different cultures, and they are all equally acceptable.

It's bullshit.That's called "cultural relativism" and not "leftism".

If in the process of 'modernising' them, you bring untold amounts of damage and chaos, it's better to leave them alone.

Look at what happened when the Aztecs for example. Or the native Americans. Or the aboriginal Australians. They were viewed as uncivilized and needed to be modernized. Look at what happened to them in the process. Nothing but bloodshed, disease, violence and near extinction.

And that's the better way?

Diversiontactics.

Either the Saudi Way is the way to go, and we should adopt it too,

or: it ain't the way to go - and it is a case on Non patieris vivere!

SNIP

I'm with you ... I've been saying it all along ... Saudi Arabia is the enemy ... maybe Pakistan, but that's still conjecture ... we should ignore Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea and hit Saudi.

Free Mecca! Free Mecca!

*sigh*

Nobody will listen to me .... :( ... I am sad now.

With the exception of N.Korea, I quite agree.

( It is insane to blame Saddam H. for acts which in no way are connected with Iraq or Iraqis. When Osama BL started his apologetics for 911, he only started mentioning the ( real ) plight of the Iraqis after several messages in which he listed every grievance he could think of. Iraq never had anything to do with 911, not even in the sick mind of OBL. )

Diversiontactics.

Either the Saudi Way is the way to go, and we should adopt it too,

or: it ain't the way to go - and it is a case on Non patieris vivere!

I'm saying that with consideration to your statement on another thread where you advocated the destruction of any nation with sharia law.

I'm saying that with consideration to your statement on another thread where you advocated the destruction of any nation with sharia law.

Good.

I don't hate political islam because of its claim to religious revelation.

I hate it because of its concurrent claim to political revelation.

In another thread, ( and I feel no need to flipflop away from it ), I state that having any other system than Democracy in itself is a casus belli.

In another thread, ( and I feel no need to flipflop away from it ), I state that having any other system than Democracy in itself is a casus belli.

Oh, so now any other government than a democracy is a case for war? Do you realize how fascist that sounds? Be a democracy, or else we will crush you.

You talk about democracy, but you intend to impose it by fascists means. You certainly don't believe in democracy. You believe in might and right by force of arms.

You belong in the dark ages along with the rest of the harsher sharia governments.

Oh, so now any other government than a democracy is a case for war? Do you realize how fascist that sounds? Be a democracy, or else we will crush you.

You talk about democracy, but you intend to impose it by fascists means.
SNIP.



No other source of authority than the decision of the majority!
Indeed, Democracia o muerte!
It's called Moral Clarity.

Suppose for a second you were right, and the means were fascist.
So what?

No other source of authority than the decision of the majority!
Indeed, Democracia o muerte!
It's called Moral Clarity.

It's not called Moral Clarity. It's called Democracy. Don't try to confuse the two. And if you think that democracy should be the way, I suggest you begin by declaring war on the US. It's not a real democracy at all. It's a republic.

So where's your stance now? Either you support the destruction of America's government to be replaced by a real democracy or you support fascism.


Suppose for a second you were right, and the means were fascist.
So what?

There is no we. There's just YOU that's advocating all this. And what if your a fascist? Nothing much, save that anytime you try to call for democracy or anything like that, you will be known to be bullshitting. You will be known for what you are, not for what you say. People will be warned of you, and accord you the kind of trust that your type deserves.

None at all.

There is nothing more to say to you. Do what you will. You will be watched, and judged.

I'm probably gonna get flamed by some lefties for this, but what the hell do you expect from those people?

After all, lefties hold that everyone's way of life is equally acceptable, unless you happen to be a citizen of a Western nation and you aren't a socialist.

SNIP

There is nothing more to say to you. Do what you will. You will be watched, and judged.

I can't help noting your desire to start war on the US.
Have fun.
I'll be watching it.
Can I expect to see your picture featuring in a report on Gitmo?

I'm afraid I can't be bothered to fight a republic vz democracy-war when there is still a real dark age kingdom to deal with. If you wish to fight the republic vz democracy war, I certainly wont stop you.

they are both as bad as each other. totalatarian regimes ruled by tycoons who pose as members of the voting public. flawed systems of govt. will continue until new ones are learnt and attempted. :upyours:

* Turns on the flame thrower *

So does this mean Saudi Arabian women are uglier than Israeli ones?

* Turns on the flame thrower higher *

With the exception of N.Korea, I quite agree.

( It is insane to blame Saddam H. for acts which in no way are connected with Iraq or Iraqis. When Osama BL started his apologetics for 911, he only started mentioning the ( real ) plight of the Iraqis after several messages in which he listed every grievance he could think of. Iraq never had anything to do with 911, not even in the sick mind of OBL. )

Here comes part of my Huge Giant Iraq-War Rant. Enjoy the many (parenthetical phrases) and CAPS.

North Korea is not a huge threat to the United States itself right now, neither is Iran. It took quite a few years for the US, with all its resources and possibly the most nuclear experts in the world, to go from the atom bomb to missiles that can reach halfway across the world. They will take at least as long to produce missiles that can reach the US.

You don't seem like an unreasonable person, but I have to say something here. I agree, I haven't seen any evidence that makes me say, "Oh, look at that, Saddam Hussein supported al Qaeda! KILL HIM" but it doesn't matter. Same for WMDs. Because whether or not he had them, or he supported al Qaeda, HE WAS A DANGEROUS, TYRANNICAL DICTATOR. He was the type of person who would want WMDs, simply to enforce his rule and to intimidate Israel, America, and other nations. He was also the type of person who might sponsor a terrorist group if he knew it had a massive plan to destroy two symbols of American power, along with hundreds or thousands of American lives. And even if he had no intention of getting WMDs or supporting terrorists, he was a terrible ruler, and while that's not grounds for invasion, the fact is, he is out of power and the invasion has happened. Support it, (protest if you must, but don't leave our troops hanging) because there's not much else you can do. Let's worry instead about Muqtada al-Sadr (I think that's the one, I get these bastards confused), who is gaining a large amount of power in Iraq's now-legit government. And if he gains power that way, there's not a thing the US can do to stop him without looking hypocritical and biased. Oh and by the way, WMDs are not the only reason that was presented for an invasion of Iraq; they've been focused on by the media at the expense of everything else.

People are oh-so-eager to question why we're in Iraq; I tell them, it doesn't matter, because we ARE there and there's nothing you can do about it. Demanding immediate and total withdrawal, quite frankly, is bullshit, and to do so would be idiotic. Further, the media exaggerates the nature of Iraq. It's not like every time you patrol a road one of your squad will die. I believe the number of US military dead in Iraq is 2,450. This is a small percentage of the forces sent; people are NOT dying left and right. Other people say "Oh, we're only there for the oil!" So what? Oil is something our country NEEDS, a lot more than Iraq does. The gas prices (which are NOT Bush's fault), need to go down; while Europe has been dealing with much higher prices for longer, no need to suffer longer than necessary. I personally believe the US should be like France and switch to nuclear power, but that's another story. And if any soldiers in Iraq are on NS, and want to correct me, I'm open to it.

In short, maybe Bush did present some bad reasons for war in Iraq. But there's no question that whatever oil we're receiving is GOOD, so even if we are "just there for the oil" that's fine with me. Besides, we are there and Bush is not going to wake up and say, "Well, time to take all our soldiers out at once!" So protesting is good, it's the foundation of America, and we all agree that Bush has made mistakes, but don't protest too loudly, because there's not much you can do to get our troops out TODAY.

I'd like to present two examples, from the left and the right, about why protesting is being taken too far. From the left, there's that woman who lost a relative in Iraq and camped out or something by Bush's ranch, making noise. LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE LOST BROTHERS/FATHERS/SONS/HUSBANDS IN IRAQ, and did they bitch about it? NO! The patriotic thing to do is to grieve, but not to dishonor their sacrifice by arrogantly implying that your loss is the most important thing that Bush should have on his mind. And from the right, some assholes who crashed Marine and Army funerals, carring posters like "Semper Fi, Semper FAGS", making noise and being pussies, on the basis that Marines are defending a nation of homos who are sinful by their very nature. Needless to say, I hate these people from the depths of my soul. I have yet to hear of a good reason for somebody attacking the Marines. These people have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and dishonoring that is the REAL sin. This shows why protest needs to be kept moderate.

I'm not sure if I really had a point with all of the above, but whatever...

Starting a war to end suffering is a juxtaposition in terms. By starting the war, you'll create far more widespread suffering than ever existed before hand.

<snip>.

Sorry, but all the psychological evidence is against you. The parents of those cross-gendered individuals must have sub-consciously treated them like boys.
Nice. The facts prove you wrong, so you decide out of the blue that the parents must have done something wrong. Fact is that male and female children aren't treated all that differently in American society.
What is "normal?" Please define these "drives" along with some evidence that they are equally valued by all peoples in all cultures.

Normal in this case means the drives and desires felt by people who aren't sociopaths or suffer from some other brain defect. The drives include the desire for social status, shown by the fact that in every society people seek to accumulate the items that display status, like jewelery, body art, enemie's heads, or whatever the particular culture judges status by. Another of these drives is the desire for security. People willingly submit to states that provide physical security, and when no such state is available, or when the drive for status forces one to abandon the state's leviathan, stunningly similar "honor cultures" arise. It's seen in herding cultures like the Masai of Africa, it's seen in Cosa Nostra crime families, it was seen among American frontiersmen, and Scottish highlanders and basically any group that must live outside law. Their honor cultures vary in small details, but share so much of their major structures that it could only be inborn instinct.

I refuse to accept the implicitly racist assertion that Arabs enjoy tyranny. Our way of life -- what Ronald Reagan called "This way of freedom of ours" -- IS better.
That's correct. People share the vast bulk of their genes in common. Genes determine the structure of the brain and control a large ammount of human nature. The conditions that serve the desires and needs of one group of people well will serve the needs and desires of other groups of people well.

If in the process of 'modernising' them, you bring untold amounts of damage and chaos, it's better to leave them alone.

Look at what happened when the Aztecs for example. Or the native Americans. Or the aboriginal Australians. They were viewed as uncivilized and needed to be modernized. Look at what happened to them in the process. Nothing but bloodshed, disease, violence and near extinction.

And that's the better way?
Look at medicine. In the bad old days medicine was often as deadly as the disease they tried to treat. Nowadays modern medicine is very effective and saves millions of lives annually. Just as we wouldn't treat syphilis with mercury anymore we wouldn't modernize nations through slavery, forced religion, and near genocidal war anymore.

Really random, but I was just thinking, I don't remeber ever seeing women in saudi newpapers to start off- and I should know seeing as I lived there for 8 years

You know, they are trying to improve things for the women. A few months ago the king even said that its possible that maybe sometime in the future women will be allowed to drive.

It has its up sides too, being a women in saudi arabia. In a way its sorta nice being driven around everywhere, you can always find cabs (just don't take the yellow ones :p) anywhere anyway if you don't have a male around to pick you up or to drive you around You wouldn't imagine it, but they have a lot of good stores there, I miss a bunch of the stores there, because you can't find them in holland, but I guess you could probably in america becuase many stores were american.

On the subject of male and female genetic differences in behavior.

Some children are born with only one sex chromosome. Always an X. Since the default body plan for mammals is female they look female at birth. They may inherit the X chromosome from the father or mother. X chromosomes from the father are "female" X chromosomes. They contain genes that are only expressed in females. X chromosomes from the mother contain some genes expressed in males. Single X women who inherit their X from the mother act like boys. They prefer rough and tumble play, masculine toys, are more sexually stimulated by visual stimulus and desire anonymous sex and one night stands more. Those that inherit the X from their father act more in line with normal females.

Both groups are raised as females by parents and both groups are treated as females by their peers. Parents have little impact on how a child will grow up anyway. Peers have a far greater impact. Despite both influences, those with the X from the mother still act more like a typical male than like a typical female.

Girls born with an adrenal condition that produces an abundance of androstenedione during development also act like little boys even after the endocrine condition stabilizes. Androgens change the brain in utero and during early child development.

Given this information it's clear that genes do determine alot about human nature.

I for one agree. I find it ridiculous how the Left has elevated Islam (not to mention my other petpeeve punk rock) to sacred cow status. Since when does Islam fit into the goals of socialism?
:rolleyes: Just because someone's muslim doesn't mean they're an oppressive, infidel killing monster.

I don't watch basketball. It's the most boring of all professional sports.
Actually, NOTHING is more boring than curling! You would find basketball exciting after a game of curling!

Actually, NOTHING is more boring than curling! You would find basketball exciting after a game of curling!

I agree, but cricket's pretty boring too

Basketball is awesome. It's baseball that's boring.

Genes determine potential. How that potential is fulfilled depends on environment. I can't back this up scientifically that I know of, and I'm not going to try too hard, but it just seems like common sense to say that BOTH environment and genes determine human nature. And girls and boys are treated VERY differently in America. Think about gender roles; they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Look at ads; they shape our culture to an incredible degree. They tell us subconsciously what we are and what we should be. Genders think differently too; in short, girls and boys are very different, and treating everyone the same will warp the culture immeasurably.

no no no

you all have it wrong - all sports are boring with the exception of extreme sports on occasion

Basketball is awesome. It's baseball that's boring.

Genes determine potential. How that potential is fulfilled depends on environment. I can't back this up scientifically that I know of, and I'm not going to try too hard, but it just seems like common sense to say that BOTH environment and genes determine human nature. And girls and boys are treated VERY differently in America. Think about gender roles; they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Look at ads; they shape our culture to an incredible degree. They tell us subconsciously what we are and what we should be. Genders think differently too; in short, girls and boys are very different, and treating everyone the same will warp the culture immeasurably.

what about guys who act "girly" or women who act "manly"? Should we treat them according to their gender or who they are as individuals? WHy should we base our treatment to people on what they have between their legs?

I'm not defending it, and gender is flexible. Treatment varies, I think, for feminine men or masculine women; depending on environment, their preferences may be accepted or they may be treated as their physical gender. Appearances have a lot to do with it; I would guess that a woman who has a penis would be treated as a 'weird' woman, because they appeared more feminine than masculine. And if you want to attack judgment based on appearance, that is simply naive. Judgment is an essential part of human survival, and judgment by physical appearance is the quickest way to size up pretty much anything and everything one sees. People could try to reject judgment of others, but I wouldn't be surprised when they failed.

Besides, what does it matter if you act "girly"? You say all sports are boring except some extreme sports. The majority of Americans would disagree, many vehemently. Society does not care what your individual preferences are, and a society that cares for each and every individual is doomed. Some people are born pedophiles; society still reviles pedophilia. Some people are born crippled and yet hate to be treated with pity; society will still treat them so. Society does not and should not go to any lengths to care for the individual.

Oh please, I have never, EVER, heard a neo conservative say that women need to be slaves.

Then you're clearly not well versed on how the right wing conservatives not only want to take away a woman's choice over what to do with her body, but are also doing everything in their power to make sure sex is a post-marriage thing *only* and, thus, destroying any chance of lesbians having sex since they don't want gay marriages.

Hence, the only thing a woman can do when it comes to sex and her body is rely on the whim of a man.

Therefore, Conservatives == Arabs. Only thing you're missing is the burqah.

"Their place" apparently being the President's personal staff, the National Security Council and the Departments of State, Interior, Labor, Education...This nonsense about a mysoginist 'neoncon Christian conservative conspiracy' is precisely that -- nonsense; moronic far-left drivel without the slightest trappings of a basis in reality or common sense.

I didn't mention the President. Odd that you'd jump to that conclusion.

[Bush] the first U.S. president to celebrate Hannukah.

Here's Clinton lighting the menorah.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/hanukkah/washington.menorah/white.house.menorah.jpg

Here's Carter (just in case you meant Bush I).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/holiday/2002/hanukkah/menorah/images/400-carter-398v.jpg

I suggest you do a bit more fact checking.

Actually, NOTHING is more boring than curling! You would find basketball exciting after a game of curling!

Curling is the second most popular televised sport in Canada.

I rather enjoy it.

[Bush is] the most unadbashedly pro-Israel president since Ronald Reagan and the first U.S. president to celebrate Hannukah.
He's also the first US President to call for an independent Palestinian state.

If in the process of 'modernising' them, you bring untold amounts of damage and chaos, it's better to leave them alone.

Look at what happened when the Aztecs for example. Or the native Americans. Or the aboriginal Australians. They were viewed as uncivilized and needed to be modernized. Look at what happened to them in the process. Nothing but bloodshed, disease, violence and near extinction.

And that's the better way?
You have a good point, but with the Aztecs, maybe what happened to them was good. They were an especially bloodthirsty civilisation.

With the Native Americans/Australians, some used "they need to be modernised" as a veil for an outright power grab.

After all, lefties hold that everyone's way of life is equally acceptable, unless you happen to be a citizen of a Western nation and you aren't a socialist.
Not all lefties think like this. Only the relativist lefties. I don't really consider them to be left-wing, because we are supposed to fight for the rights of the underdog. In this case that is the women of Saudi Arabia. We also have a commitment to women's rights.

Starting a war to end suffering is a juxtaposition in terms. By starting the war, you'll create far more widespread suffering than ever existed before hand.
But you might stop suffering that would have happened in the future. A good example is the destruction of the Nazi regime in WWII. Sure, it cost more lives than they took in the Holocaust, but I think it was worth it.

:rolleyes: Just because someone's muslim doesn't mean they're an oppressive, infidel killing monster.
I think he was criticising those who do defend the monstrous "infidel killing" Muslims and their "right" not to be offended. (and I regret to say that there are some on the Left)

you all have it wrong - all sports are boring with the exception of extreme sports on occasion
Check this out (http://www.extremeironing.com/)


Therefore, Conservatives == Arabs. Only thing you're missing is the burqah.
Finally, someone who thinks like me!

On Sunday the August 15th 2004, a 16 year old girl was sentenced to death for acts incompatible with chastity (having sex with her boyfriend). Generally in Iran an execution will either involve a hanging, or the "guilty" party being buried up to their shoulders and then having rocks hurled at their head until they are dead. If the "criminal" is a woman then they will often be raped prior to the execution so that they will not enter the next life as virgins and will not enter heaven.

Is this an example of cultural relativism? Or is it just plain wrong.

That is just wrong. I'm assuming that male criminals aren't treated the same way. To intentionally do something so evil so that someone is deprived hope of a happy afterlife is just base.

Nice. The facts prove you wrong, so you decide out of the blue that the parents must have done something wrong. Fact is that male and female children aren't treated all that differently in American society.
What?
Ever been to a fucking toy store? Ever see what happens when a kid boy falls and scrapes his knee compared to what happens when a girls does? Do you seet he clothes their parents dress them in?
I swear to fucking God, for somebody to say that. Man, feminism is dead, and we apparently need it back very badly.
Normal in this case means the drives and desires felt by people who aren't sociopaths or suffer from some other brain defect. The drives include the desire for social status, shown by the fact that in every society people seek to accumulate the items that display status, like jewelery, body art, enemie's heads, or whatever the particular culture judges status by.
There are plenty of people who are inexplicably selfless. Are they abnormal?
Another of these drives is the desire for security. People willingly submit to states that provide physical security,
and when no such state is available, or when the drive for status forces on, to abandon the state's leviathan, stunningly similar "honor cultures" arise. It's seen in herding cultures like the Masai of Africa, it's seen in Cosa Nostra crime families, it was seen among American frontiersmen, and Scottish highlanders and basically any group that must live outside law. Their honor cultures vary in small details, but share so much of their major structures that it could only be inborn instinct.
Mobsters and frontiersman honorable? Murderers and con-men the lot of them. Not that there is anything wrong with that inside of their own moral code, but it is not "honor," it's rationalisation.

You have a good point, but with the Aztecs, maybe what happened to them was good. They were an especially bloodthirsty civilisation.

Based one what I read, the Aztecs greeted Cortez more or less amicably. What he did to them doesn't appear to have been justified.


With the Native Americans/Australians, some used "they need to be modernised" as a veil for an outright power grab.

This often holds more often than true for just about every attempt at modernization of 'primitive' cultures.

Just as we wouldn't treat syphilis with mercury anymore we wouldn't modernize nations through slavery, forced religion, and near genocidal war anymore.

Modernization via economics and cultural interaction? A bit, but most of the time, I'm seeing more 'modernization' via firepower than the rest.

I suggest you do a bit more fact checking.
My mistake. President Bush was the first American president to celebrate Hannukah at the White House residence.

He's also the first US President to call for an independent Palestinian state.
Quite correct.