NationStates Jolt Archive

This was on the local news this morning, a man who was sexually abusing an autistic boy in his care. The man has been working with autistic children for some time now, so they're contacting previous people to find out if there are any other allegations of a similar nature.

This would be a fairly generic pedophile story, if not for the fact that the suspect blames "cultural differences" for his behavior - that is, he thought it was OK because in the culture where he comes from, apparently it's OK to fondle little boys and take naked pictures of them.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"? Is there a limit? Or not? If there's a limit, where do you place the line?

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8234733&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Rockville, MD. -- A court affidavit made public Monday says a 61-year-old man has confessed to fondling an eleven year old autistic boy.

Abdul Kudsy, who was a paid caretaker of the child five hours a day, four days a week, told investigators he "cared for the (child) like a son" and blamed his behavior on "cultural differences".

Montgomery County police say Kudsy used a cell phone camera to take nude pictures of the boy.

Yes. Yes there are.

If cultural differences could excuse illegal behaviour, any sort of legal system would be a farce.
Cultural tolerance can only go so far, as soon as people are actually getting (involuntarily) hurt a line needs to be drawn.

what culture is this anyways ???

what culture is this anyways ???

It doesn't say.

what culture is this anyways ???
A really, really shitty one.

there are limits.
law trumps culture every time

Cultural differences doesn't give you the right to break the law. However, it may entitle you to legal accomodation.

For example, drugs may be illegal, but certain churches, cultures, etc. have been able to partake legally due to legal exceptions. Similar laws allow Native Americans and Inuit to hunt for animals and with techniques that would normally be illegal.

So the question is; Did he have a permit?

Cultural differences doesn't give you the right to break the law. However, it may entitle you to legal accomodation.

For example, drugs may be illegal, but certain churches, cultures, etc. have been able to partake legally due to legal exceptions. Similar laws allow Native Americans and Inuit to hunt for animals and with techniques that would normally be illegal.

So the question is; Did he have a permit?

Legal accomodations are still "within the law". Something tells me that in the US, you aren't going to get an exception for fondling naked children.

The culture of molesting autistic boys?

Legal accomodations are still "within the law". Something tells me that in the US, you aren't going to get an exception for fondling naked children.Well, to point out, this is not France.:p

Cultural inclusivity/tolerance can only go so far before it begins infringing upon laws and the security of others. Also, seems a bit daft for a report to be published like this with cultural conflict as the reason the offender committed the act without actually citing what cultures exactly are clashing.
o_O

It doesn't say.

I am guessing a tribal culture. Ive heard of some(not confined to any specific region) that allow this, but only during long periods away from others.

The culture of molesting autistic boys?

"just like I would my own son"

Cultural inclusivity/tolerance can only go so far before it begins infringing upon laws and the security of others. Also, seems a bit daft for a report to be published like this with cultural conflict as the reason the offender committed the act without actually citing what cultures exactly are clashing.
o_O

Here in the US, it's traditional that with certain cultures, the news media will not identify the culture in question unless it's one that they don't like.

So, for some pedophile-loving cultures, such as the more wacky offshoots of the Mormon Church, the media feels free to identify the culture.

Or if it's a Catholic priest - sure, go ahead and identify.

If it's remotely possible that the culture is associated with people who fly airliners into buildings, the culture is not mentioned.

I voted for the law is paramount, but on second thoughts, this is more complicated than it seems. Separate the sexual abuse thing. That's irrelevant. Let's say that I was living in Pakistan, and I violated the law and local customs by practising non-religion in public. Is the law paramount here?

It seems that this question should actually be worded: is the law just? If so, then yes, it's paramount. If not, fuck it.

Legal accomodations are still "within the law". Something tells me that in the US, you aren't going to get an exception for fondling naked children.

Until Recently, the Catholic CHurch gave em out. It's called 'priesthood' *nod*

Until Recently, the Catholic CHurch gave em out. *nod*

It got expensive...

It is a continuing strawman on the part of people who are opposed to [what they term] "multiculturalism," that people who are in favor of respecting cultures (as opposed to say, exterminating them and spreading hateful bigoted racist bullshit) are also in favor of breaking the laws in the name of culture. This helps make "multiculturalism" not just a practice of toleration but an evil movement to enact Sharia law and kill White children or something.

You can burn that strawman all you like. I hope it makes you feel better.

Here in the US, it's traditional that with certain cultures, the news media will not identify the culture in question unless it's one that they don't like.

So, for some pedophile-loving cultures, such as the more wacky offshoots of the Mormon Church, the media feels free to identify the culture.

Or if it's a Catholic priest - sure, go ahead and identify.

If it's remotely possible that the culture is associated with people who fly airliners into buildings, the culture is not mentioned.

Well, considering that we are talking about the country that has been known to take children away from parents after a drug store worker developing holiday pictures informed the police that the kids had in fact been *gasp* naked on the pictures of the camping trip, there's a fair chance all this is about is a hug and a kiss.

I voted for the law is paramount, but on second thoughts, this is more complicated than it seems. Separate the sexual abuse thing. That's irrelevant. Let's say that I was living in Pakistan, and I violated the law and local customs by practising non-religion in public. Is the law paramount here?

It seems that this question should actually be worded: is the law just? If so, then yes, it's paramount. If not, fuck it.

Just out of curiosity... how do you plan on practicing non-religion?

Well, considering that we are talking about the country that has been known to take children away from parents after a drug store worker developing holiday pictures informed the police that the kids had in fact been *gasp* naked on the pictures of the camping trip, there's a fair chance all this is about is a hug and a kiss.

you bring up a good point. were the nude picks just a aww its cute cause the kid ran around naked after a bath? and was the molesting just a hug and kiss type thing. more info is clearly needed.

Just out of curiosity... how do you plan on practicing non-religion?

punishment for not praying during the call to pray 50 lashes.
so not praying would do it.

It got expensive...

I blame 'The People's Court'. *nod*

So the question is; Did he have a permit?
Pedobear: License to Rape!


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/70/Pedobear_12.jpg

you bring up a good point. were the nude picks just a aww its cute cause the kid ran around naked after a bath? and was the molesting just a hug and kiss type thing. more info is clearly needed.

I would certainly welcome it.
If the accused, as assumed by Hotwife, is from a Muslim culture, the alleged abuse might well have been a hearty kiss on the mouth... more than common in the Middle East and Mediterranean, but definitely eyebrow-raising over here.

punishment for not praying during the call to pray 50 lashes.
so not praying would do it.

How can they tell? Everyone's inside praying.

Pedobear: License to Rape!


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/70/Pedobear_12.jpg


We have a winner!

punishment for not praying during the call to pray 50 lashes.
so not praying would do it.

Interesting, I hadn't heard about that before. Any links?

Well, considering that we are talking about the country that has been known to take children away from parents after a drug store worker developing holiday pictures informed the police that the kids had in fact been *gasp* naked on the pictures of the camping trip, there's a fair chance all this is about is a hug and a kiss.

Apparently it's about "fondling", which isn't a hug and a kiss.

"It's sex Jim, but not as we know it"

Apparently it's about "fondling", which isn't a hug and a kiss.

What exactly is it, then?

What exactly is it, then?

Fondling the boy's genitals until the boy got a hardon, then taking pictures of it.

Interesting, I hadn't heard about that before. Any links?

You're missing the point entirely. I could've just as easily said "worshipping someone other than the local diety in Kabbustatistaniton". It doesn't matter what the supposed crime is, just that the law enforcing it is stupid.

Fondling the boy's genitals until the boy got a hardon, then taking pictures of it.

Do you have a link you haven't shared yet? Cause the one you posted doesn't state this.

You're missing the point entirely. I could've just as easily said "worshipping someone other than the local diety in Kabbustatistaniton". It doesn't matter what the supposed crime is, just that the law enforcing it is stupid.

I'm well aware there are some harebrained laws in existence in almost every single country on the planet... but if a law is stupid, it need to be changed. Not broken and then moaned about.

I'm well aware there are some harebrained laws in existence in almost every single country on the planet... but if a law is stupid, it need to be changed. Not broken and then moaned about.

Rubbish. Stupid laws should be ignored until they are repealed.

The suspect apparently emigrated from Sierra Leone 27 years ago.

There are 16 different ethnic groups in Sierra Leone.

As for the OP, culutral rights should be respected as long as they do not infringe on the rights of individuals.

It must be terrible to be a pedophile. Most of them never touch a child.

But they are living in a duality:

* They are sexual attracted to children
* They know it’s wrong and thus don’t enter the zone.

Imagine, that having heterosexual sex is unlawful…

Rubbish. Stupid laws should be ignored until they are repealed.

Well, then don't complain about someone punishing you for it.

Do you have a link you haven't shared yet? Cause the one you posted doesn't state this.

It was on the news this morning, not in a link. He specifically confessed to fondling the boy's genitals in that manner.

Well, then don't complain about someone punishing you for it.

Uh, that wasn't my point at all. In fact you're miles off. My point was that asking if the law is above respecting cultural differences is not the question that should be asked first; first, we must decide whether the law is stupid or not. In this case it's not a stupid law, therefore the law supersedes cultural quirks. In my example, however, the law is stupid, and should NOT supersede cultural differences.

Respecting and allowing cultural difference is fine. But violation of the law cannot be countenanced; if people wish to have the law changed, that's fine, but until it is, illegalities remain illegal regardless of any or all cultural imperatives.

Rubbish. Stupid laws should be ignored until they are repealed.

Just out of curiousity, who gets to decide if the law is stupid?

Just out of curiousity, who gets to decide if the law is stupid?

William Shatner. *nod*

Just out of curiousity, who gets to decide if the law is stupid?

The individual. And then it is the task of the individual to convince others that the law is stupid. And when enough people are convinced, the law will be changed sooner or later. If you decide to break the law in the convincing process, you are still to face the consequences that are attached to breaking that law.

Cultural differences can be a great catalyst in discussing the stupidity of a law, and thus making a positive contribution to society as a whole. Of course discussion a law does not need to result in changing the law, it could be good as it is.

It is a continuing strawman on the part of people who are opposed to [what they term] "multiculturalism," that people who are in favor of respecting cultures (as opposed to say, exterminating them and spreading hateful bigoted racist bullshit) are also in favor of breaking the laws in the name of culture. This helps make "multiculturalism" not just a practice of toleration but an evil movement to enact Sharia law and kill White children or something.

You can burn that strawman all you like. I hope it makes you feel better.
This.^^

Just because we do not tolerate violations of the law, it does not follow that cultural differences are not being respected. It is not a blanket either/or proposition. It just requires case-by-case consideration, which is why we have a legal system in the first place.

Here in the US, it's traditional that with certain cultures, the news media will not identify the culture in question unless it's one that they don't like.

So, for some pedophile-loving cultures, such as the more wacky offshoots of the Mormon Church, the media feels free to identify the culture.

Or if it's a Catholic priest - sure, go ahead and identify.

If it's remotely possible that the culture is associated with people who fly airliners into buildings, the culture is not mentioned.

Off again on the bigot mobile, I see.

Im sure DK is shocked right now that most people arent voting for his "No, there are no limits" option.

Here in the US, it's traditional that with certain cultures, the news media will not identify the culture in question unless it's one that they don't like.

Im sure you have some sort of proof for this?


Oh, who am I kidding.

So, for some pedophile-loving cultures, such as the more wacky offshoots of the Mormon Church, the media feels free to identify the culture.

Or if it's a Catholic priest - sure, go ahead and identify.

Christian Persecution Complex.

If it's remotely possible that the culture is associated with people who fly airliners into buildings, the culture is not mentioned.

What in the hells gives you the impression that this guy is Muslim? Or is raping kids the only attack you havent flung at Islam and Arabs yet, so you figured, what the hell?

It is a continuing strawman on the part of people who are opposed to [what they term] "multiculturalism," that people who are in favor of respecting cultures (as opposed to say, exterminating them and spreading hateful bigoted racist bullshit) are also in favor of breaking the laws in the name of culture. This helps make "multiculturalism" not just a practice of toleration but an evil movement to enact Sharia law and kill White children or something.

You can burn that strawman all you like. I hope it makes you feel better.

This. They also seem to think that because we dont want to exterminate or deem any non-western culture inferior (as well as its practitioners...), that means we must approve of honor killings or female circumcision, or we're somehow inconsistant.

It is a continuing strawman on the part of people who are opposed to [what they term] "multiculturalism," that people who are in favor of respecting cultures (as opposed to say, exterminating them and spreading hateful bigoted racist bullshit) are also in favor of breaking the laws in the name of culture. This helps make "multiculturalism" not just a practice of toleration but an evil movement to enact Sharia law and kill White children or something.

You can burn that strawman all you like. I hope it makes you feel better.

Kimchi could start his own Burning Man Festival online with his track record. Or do a re-enactment of The Wicker Man.

This. They also seem to think that because we dont want to exterminate or deem any non-western culture inferior (as well as its practitioners...), that means we must approve of honor killings or female circumcision, or we're somehow inconsistant.

Kimchi sure loves his slippery slopes and false dichotomies. Oh and of course he can't go without his daily fix of "mozlemz r ebil" as even this thread shows. Not to mention his constant obcession with doing an Ace Ventura impression that'll have Jim Carrey suing for royalties before long.

Im sure DK is shocked right now that most people arent voting for his "No, there are no limits" option.

I'm sure he misses the days where the likes of Angry Internet Stalinist and United Beleriland would have gladly given him exactly what he wanted too.

Honestly though, setting up a pitch with a topic on cultural relativism and turning it into another "See? mozlems r ebil" thread was just too predictable and inevitable whenever Kimchi's involved.

This. They also seem to think that because we dont want to exterminate or deem any non-western culture inferior (as well as its practitioners...), that means we must approve of honor killings or female circumcision, or we're somehow inconsistant.
Well, in all fairness, if you're going to demonize an entire group of people,* it is difficult to press an argument without indulging in false dichotomies.


* As when you pick up a news report about a possible alleged sex crime, which may or may not have happened, and, on the basis of the suspect's name, decide to assign him to a religious/cultural group and declare, without the slightest shred of evidence for any part of this, that a culture that you do not know he belongs to is the source of the alleged criminal behavior.

What in the hells gives you the impression that this guy is Muslim?
That his name is "Abdul Muhammad", maybe? ("Abdul" means "servant of")

That his name is "Abdul Muhammad", maybe? ("Abdul" means "servant of")
Right, because nobody but Muslims have ever given their kids such a name. There is no such thing as a Christian Arab, let alone one named Abdul or Muhammad. Plus it is physically impossible for an Arab with a Muslim name to not be religious or adherent to some weird-ass "cultural tradition." Gods know there's no such thing as ethnic names persisting among the later generations of immigrant families long after assimilation is complete -- witness all those Italian-Americans named Antonio who only do thing the way they do them in Italy, even though they were born and raised in Texas -- therefore, on the basis of his name alone we can know what culture he lives by. And naturally, no one would ever think to suggest that it is not actually a Muslim cultural tradition to molest autistic boys.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"?

The law.

Gee, that was easy.

That his name is "Abdul Muhammad", maybe? ("Abdul" means "servant of")

:rolleyes:

And naturally, no one would ever think to suggest that it is not actually a Muslim cultural tradition to molest autistic boys.

No, of course not.

And naturally, no one would ever think to suggest that it is not actually a Muslim cultural tradition to molest autistic boys.


Well, while its not about autistic boys, Quraan does talk about virgin boys who will "serve" men in Jannah:

52:24 Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them. Youths (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded. (another version reads: And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.)


56:17 Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness),

76:19 And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls.

So again, while nothing explicitly reads they will have sex with them, the talk about them being as virgins and having freshness would imply that in the Islamic heaven, men will have young boys to "serve" them, with a sexual tone.

Respect != 'allow all things supposedly justified by cultural differences'

Right, because nobody but Muslims have ever given their kids such a name.

That's correct.
There is no such thing as a Christian Arab, let alone one named Abdul or Muhammad.

Christian Arabs do not name their children "Abdul Muhammad", no.
Gods know there's no such thing as ethnic names persisting among the later generations of immigrant families long after assimilation is complete

This is first-generation completely unassimilated, according to himself.

That's correct.

See our current president elect.

Christian Arabs do not name...

Oh, and you can back this up?

Well, while its not about autistic boys, Quraan does talk about virgin boys who will "serve" men in Jannah:

Its possible serve doesnt mean what you think it means.


So again, while nothing explicitly reads they will have sex with them, the talk about them being as virgins and having freshness would imply that in the Islamic heaven, men will have young boys to "serve" them, with a sexual tone.

Riiiiight. Which is why the Quraan says homosexuality is a sin too, right?


Really Zilam? Youre jumping on this "ebil muslim" bandwagon too? Really?

Really Zilam? Youre jumping on this "ebil muslim" bandwagon too? Really?

given his recent posting trends, are you really so surprised?

This was on the local news this morning, a man who was sexually abusing an autistic boy in his care. The man has been working with autistic children for some time now, so they're contacting previous people to find out if there are any other allegations of a similar nature.

This would be a fairly generic pedophile story, if not for the fact that the suspect blames "cultural differences" for his behavior - that is, he thought it was OK because in the culture where he comes from, apparently it's OK to fondle little boys and take naked pictures of them.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"? Is there a limit? Or not? If there's a limit, where do you place the line?

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8234733&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

I've looked elsewhere for information about this story. It seems that FOX is the only source with the "Cultural Differences" angle, and no one seems to know exactly what mythical pedophiliac culture Kudsy hails from.

Its possible serve doesnt mean what you think it means. Given that serve is mentioned with in a sexual context, I think it does. Also, given that Jannah is a whore house anyways, its not a far jump to believe that this is sexual.



Riiiiight. Which is why the Quraan says homosexuality is a sin too, right? Drinking alcohol is a sin here on earth, according to al-Quraan. However, in Jannah, there are rivers of wine. So, if one sin is bad here, but okay in Jannah, then why not other ones?



Really Zilam? Youre jumping on this "ebil muslim" bandwagon too? Really?
Did I attack any Muslims calling them evil? I can criticize the religion, just as you would criticize mine. Should I go out and call you a bigot for any complaints you have against Christianity? I think not. Islam is not immune to criticism. Mohammad is not either. He was a pedophile, and warmonger. Quran and hadith back this up.

Now, show me where I am calling Muslims evil. ;) You can't.

given his recent posting trends, are you really so surprised?

Right, because the very moment I disagree with you or the other liberals on this forum, I automatically have a bad posting trend. Ha!:rolleyes:

Right, because the very moment I disagree with you or the other liberals on this forum, I automatically have a bad posting trend. Ha!:rolleyes:

no, that's not why. It's not that you disagree. It's your immature, close minded, bigotted, anti-semetic and downright racist worldview.

I do put restrictions on "acceptable cultural differences." If a culture routinely oppresses or victimizes a group in the name of culture and/or religion, that's unacceptable - I'm thinking of cultures that oppress women (think female circumcision, excluding women from society, denying women education), children, etc. These cultures should be actively opposed.

Cultural differences like music, literature, food and even (to some extent) sexual activities (excluding exploiting children and those unable to understand enough to give consent) are part of the variety of humanity and should be celebrated, not condemned.

But to answer the general question of "how far do we go", the answer is simple. Consenting adults. Nothing more nothing less. Sexual molestation of children is unacceptable regardless of the cultural context, because it breaks that rule. Doesn't matter what culture it comes from.

no, that's not why. It's not that you disagree. It's your immature, close minded, bigotted, anti-semetic and downright racist worldview.

Right. Go on and prove every single thing you just accused me of. And so it won't high jack this thread, feel free to TG me the examples of such.

Right. Go on and prove every single thing you just accused me of. And so it won't high jack this thread, feel free to TG me the examples of such.

Your recent proclamations of "israelis are committing genocide!" are proof positive of all of it. I need reach no further.

Oh, and you can back this up?

That Christians don't name their kids "servant of Muhammad"???? I would think that was a real durrrrrr statement. But in any case, the burden of proof has to be on the positive side (show me a Christian with such a name) rather than the negative (you want a list of every name of every single Christian?)

Your recent proclamations of "israelis are committing genocide!" are proof positive of all of it. I need reach no further.


Israeli is a race now? lol. Not all Israelis are Jews either, thus me being against the gov't of Israel doesn't make me a Jew hater. You are making such great leaps here. Its a bit embarrassing for you.

Christian Arabs do not name their children "Abdul Muhammad", no.

This is first-generation completely unassimilated, according to himself.

The suspect is not Arab. He is from Sierra Leone.

If he was completely unassimilated, then how did he find employment over the last twenty seven years of his life?

Your recent proclamations of "israelis are committing genocide!" are proof positive of all of it. I need reach no further.

Are you serious? I mean, saying the Israelies are committing genocide IS a little harsh, but the Israeli government HAS committed a large number of human rights violations.

The Israeli government isn't exactly a saint here.

The suspect is not Arab. He is from Sierra Leone.

If he was completely unassimilated, then how did he find employment over the last twenty seven years of his life?

Because he has an Arabic-sounding name, which makes him an ebil mozlem that refuses to assimilate of course duh.

*Looks at January 20 marked on calendar, then looks up name of President Elect.*

Oh shit, we're gonna become a caliphate!

Im sure DK is shocked right now that most people arent voting for his "No, there are no limits" option.

To be fair, the only reason you're not is to spite him.

The suspect is not Arab. He is from Sierra Leone.

... You do know that there are black Muslims, right?

Because he has an Arabic-sounding name, which makes him an ebil mozlem that refuses to assimilate of course duh.

*Looks at January 20 marked on calendar, then looks up name of President Elect.*

Oh shit, we're gonna become a caliphate!

Maybe you will. In which case, I look forward to riding a tank into your capital when the war comes.

To be fair, the only reason you're not is to spite him.

Oh, and you can prove this right? You have something to back this up aside from the fact that your a troll?

Well, while its not about autistic boys, Quraan does talk about virgin boys who will "serve" men in Jannah:

52:24 Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them. Youths (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded. (another version reads: And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.)


56:17 Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness),

76:19 And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls.

So again, while nothing explicitly reads they will have sex with them, the talk about them being as virgins and having freshness would imply that in the Islamic heaven, men will have young boys to "serve" them, with a sexual tone.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

There. A link to the Quran that everyone can read, and not one that is run my Muslims. If anyone will find something questionable in the Quran, it's them.

Sorry, Zilam, but those verses don't mean what you claim. Taken in context, the first one obviously is not meant to be sexual. While in the other two, though the sex of the youth is indeterminate, their use of descriptors that they have used for the immortal houris would suggest that these youths are meant to be female. But it is open to interpretation.

Nor is drinking alcohol a sin for all Muslims. Have you never read the works of Rumi (http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/mewlana_jalaluddin_rumi/poems/5439), the Sufi poet?

... You do know that there are black Muslims, right?
You do know that Arab is an ethnic group and has absolutely nothing to do with what religion you are, right?

You do know that Arab is an ethnic group and has absolutely nothing to do with what religion you are, right?

Your point? The argument was about culture, not race.

... You do know that there are black Muslims, right?

Yes. And white ones.

But we are discussing whether the suspect is Arab. He probably is Muslim. 60% of the Sierra population is Muslim. But there are very few Arabs in Sierra Leone.

Arab and Muslim are two different things.

There is no one law just as there is no one culture.

It's a big world out there,
But Abdul knew he was breaking US law and he was most probably in breach of his Moslem culture too. It sounds as if he was grasping at satraws to mitigate the charge.

Yes. And white ones.

But we are discussing whether the suspect is Arab. He probably is Muslim. 60% of the Sierra population is Muslim. But there are very few Arabs in Sierra Leone.

Arab and Muslim are two different things.

... So basically, the thread has gone off onto a completely pointless tangent? Discussing whether he is Arab is about as meaningful to this thread as discussing whether or not he likes chocolate ice cream.

Uh, yeah. If someone thinks it's a cool idea to stone homosexuals to death or to brutally kill rape victims, I'm going to draw the line. I stop respecting cultural differences when those cultural differences can lead to harming innocent people or depriving them of human rights. There is nothing gained from respecting ignorance, barbarism, and bigotry...we have to concede that there is some degree of objectively right treatment towards human beings or else we'll end up allowing these vile things to continue, and in my opinion not acting in the face of these egregious abuses is morally wrong.

Fact is, cultures that respect human rights and personal freedoms have the highest quality of life, greatest human potential and greatest happiness of any on Earth. Those that don't have to rely on oppression to keep their people in line and are directly associated with human suffering on a colossal scale.

... So basically, the thread has gone off onto a completely pointless tangent? Discussing whether he is Arab is about as meaningful to this thread as discussing whether or not he likes chocolate ice cream.

No, this was DK's intention all along, as if this somehow proved that Muslims are all child molesters.

No, this was DK's intention all along, as if this somehow proved that Muslims are all child molesters.

You're mixing up Muslim and Arab again.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

There. A link to the Quran that everyone can read, and not one that is run my Muslims. If anyone will find something questionable in the Quran, it's them.

Sorry, Zilam, but those verses don't mean what you claim. Taken in context, the first one obviously is not meant to be sexual. While in the other two, though the sex of the youth is indeterminate, their use of descriptors that they have used for the immortal houris would suggest that these youths are meant to be female. But it is open to interpretation.

Shall I post links to Muslim scholars who very well disagree with that?


Nor is drinking alcohol a sin for all Muslims. Have you never read the works of Rumi (http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/mewlana_jalaluddin_rumi/poems/5439), the Sufi poet?

And sufism is regarded as a sort of Heresy, especially when the Quran is clear that alcohol is prohibited. How can one claim to be such and such, when they go against a clear guideline that would make them what they claim to be. For example, let's say you have a person who claims to be a USian. He can speak English well, he know US American history and politics and the like. However, he doesn't have US American citizenship. How can he claim to be USian when he doesn't meet the credentials? Alcohol, along with pork, is forbidden to be consumed unless its a life or death situation. This is what Islam clearly states. The Quran is pretty ambiguous in some things, but this is one of those things that isn't in the gray area.

... So basically, the thread has gone off onto a completely pointless tangent? Discussing whether he is Arab is about as meaningful to this thread as discussing whether or not he likes chocolate ice cream.

Well, since we are discussing culture and law, as opposed to religion and law, then we should be be discussing his culture.

I'll be very clear about this. When we speak of Arab Muslims, we mean that their culture is Arabic and their religon is Muslim. The suspect is probably from some unknown culture in Sierra Leone, and is probably Muslim. But it doesn't matter what his religion is.

Shall I post links to Muslim scholars who very well disagree with that?

Yes.

And sufism is regarded as a sort of Heresy, especially when the Quran is clear that alcohol is prohibited. How can one claim to be such and such, when they go against a clear guideline that would make them what they claim to be. For example, let's say you have a person who claims to be a USian. He can speak English well, he know US American history and politics and the like. However, he doesn't have US American citizenship. How can he claim to be USian when he doesn't meet the credentials? Alcohol, along with pork, is forbidden to be consumed unless its a life or death situation. This is what Islam clearly states. The Quran is pretty ambiguous in some things, but this is one of those things that isn't in the gray area.

Actually, I did some googling and I found I was wrong. Sufis don't drink either.

Well, since we are discussing culture and law, as opposed to religion and law, then we should be be discussing his culture.

I'll be very clear about this. When we speak of Arab Muslims, we mean that their culture is Arabic and their religon is Muslim. The suspect is probably from some unknown culture in Sierra Leone, and is probably Muslim. But it doesn't matter what his religion is.

Religion is a bigger influence on culture than ethnicity.

You're mixing up Muslim and Arab again.

No, see Im actually capabale of understanding the difference. DK was going after muslims, which is obvious because he hints at them in the same breath as Catholics and Mormons, showing he was targeting religion.

Religion is a bigger influence on culture than ethnicity.

Tell you what.

If you think that his religion was what caused him to do this, please provide some sort of evidence of his religion.

Then show how being a follower of that religion influences one to pedophilia.

Then you might have an argument.

If you think that his religion was what caused him to do this, please provide some sort of evidence of his religion.

c'mon now, look who you are talking to. Doesn't it ever get tiresome, asking the dog to dance?

To be fair, the only reason you're not is to spite him.

"To be fair, I'm baselessly calling you a liar!"

I love it. Didn't give any of the rest of your trolling much thought however.

"To be fair, I'm baselessly calling you a liar!"

I love it. Didn't give any of the rest of your trolling much thought however.

The kicker is I apperantly care enough about DK and "thwarting" him to lie on some BS NSG poll.

you bring up a good point. were the nude picks just a aww its cute cause the kid ran around naked after a bath? and was the molesting just a hug and kiss type thing. more info is clearly needed.

Not for Hotwife it's not. All the info he needs is right here:
ABDUL Kudsy...

That's correct.

Christian Arabs do not name their children "Abdul Muhammad", no.

This is first-generation completely unassimilated, according to himself.
A) I do not believe you about what Christian Arabs name or do not name their children because I do not believe you are an authority on naming habits of Arabs in general. I think you're just talking out your ass on that one, particularly since you offer nothing but your say-so as support of your argument.

B) Are you claiming now that this person was actually behaving according to a cultural tradition of molesting boys? If so, I suppose you have evidence that such a tradition actually exists. I look forward to seeing it.

That Christians don't name their kids "servant of Muhammad"???? I would think that was a real durrrrrr statement. But in any case, the burden of proof has to be on the positive side (show me a Christian with such a name) rather than the negative (you want a list of every name of every single Christian?)
Well you would think wrong. All you have to do is look at American naming habits to know that such rules are not necessarily adhered to, and that non-Muslims would not be as worried about what those names mean as Muslims might be.

If you are going to insist otherwise, you're going to have to back it up. Otherwise, I'm going to go with what I actually see people doing in various parts of the world over what you think should be a "durrr" issue because of the knee-jerk assumptions you make.

EDIT: Also, if the burden of proof is on the positive side, then it sits squarely on you. You are the one who asserted postively that the man's name is evidence that he is Muslim. I merely challenged that on the grounds that there is nothing to stop a non-Muslim from using those names. And you responded to that with another positive assertion, namely that Christian Arabs definitely do not use that name. I raised a doubt. You made positive assertions. You are the one who has an argument that needs backing up.

Well you would think wrong. All you have to do is look at American naming habits to know that such rules are not necessarily adhered to, and that non-Muslims would not be as worried about what those names mean as Muslims might be.


A lot of hispanics are using Muslim names lately, and theyre catholic.

Tell you what.

If you think that his religion was what caused him to do this, please provide some sort of evidence of his religion.

Then show how being a follower of that religion influences one to pedophilia.

Then you might have an argument.

Did I ever say any of that?

Did I ever say any of that?

So what is your arguement? Or are you trolling?

So what is your arguement? Or are you trolling?

My argument is that saying "Well, he's not Arab, so CLEARLY he's just one individual wacko and culture played no part in it" isn't a very good argument.

A lot of hispanics are using Muslim names lately, and theyre catholic.
True, and a good point.

And since it turns out that the man is not from an Arabic culture at all, the burden is now on those suggesting that he was acting on a cultural impulse to show how boys (autistic or otherwise) traditionally get molested in the culture of Sierra Leone, or to show how molesting boys is encouraged by Islam -- after they have shown that the man in question actually IS a Muslim.

Or they can just resign themselves to their inevitable failure.

My argument is that saying "Well, he's not Arab, so CLEARLY he's just one individual wacko and culture played no part in it" isn't a very good argument.

Youve yet to demonstrate this.

To show culture played a part in it, youd have to show hes part of a culture that molests kids.

And you havent.

True, and a good point.

And since it turns out that the man is not from an Arabic culture at all, the burden is now on those suggesting that he was acting on a cultural impulse to show how boys (autistic or otherwise) traditionally get molested in the culture of Sierra Leone, or to show how molesting boys is encouraged by Islam -- after they have shown that the man in question actually IS a Muslim.

Or they can just resign themselves to their inevitable failure.

Considering who they are they wont proove anything but will keep on saying it anyway, pretending like the fact is so obvious and we're all just "apologists".

My argument is that saying "Well, he's not Arab, so CLEARLY he's just one individual wacko and culture played no part in it" isn't a very good argument.

you're right, it isn't. Who exactly made that argument?

My argument is that saying "Well, he's not Arab, so CLEARLY he's just one individual wacko and culture played no part in it" isn't a very good argument.

So you were making a strawman fallacy. OK. Dismissed again!

Considering who they are they wont proove anything but will keep on saying it anyway, pretending like the fact is so obvious and we're all just "apologists".
I think we can take that as given. While they're at it, they can also fail to show how molesting boys is traditional in Arabic culture, too, just to (fail to) cover all the bases on their assumptions.

This message is hidden because Trostia is on your ignore list.

Gee, that was easy!

Gee, that was easy!

Do you know thats flamebaiting?

Do you know thats flamebaiting?

I got sick of Trostia's shit and put him on ignore, and all I did was let him know so he could save his breath.

I got sick of Trostia's shit and put him on ignore, and all I did was let him know so he could save his breath.

Yeah, it must be annoying when someone constantly points out your commiting logical fallacies and arent putting forth even remotely coherant arguements.

Maybe Mr.Muhammed shouldn't have stated that cultural differences were at fault. Because, you know, that could lead to people thinking that his culture endorses child molestation. That tends to happen when you say "It's not me, it's my culture!".

Maybe Mr.Muhammed shouldn't have stated that cultural differences were at fault. Because, you know, that could lead to people thinking that his culture endorses child molestation. That tends to happen when you say "It's not me, it's my culture!".

Or, he could be a child molesting idiot making up excuses, and his culture has nothing to do with it. Those of us who arent bigots tend to take that stance.


Oh wait, I forgot, your racism isnt bad because its not 'organized'.

Or, he could be a child molesting idiot making up excuses, and his culture has nothing to do with it. Those of us who arent bigots tend to take that stance.

After all, if you can't blame porn or video games, always blame your culture. Nothing like tapping in to prevalent ethnic tensions as an excuse for disgusting behavior.

This was on the local news this morning, a man who was sexually abusing an autistic boy in his care. The man has been working with autistic children for some time now, so they're contacting previous people to find out if there are any other allegations of a similar nature.

This would be a fairly generic pedophile story, if not for the fact that the suspect blames "cultural differences" for his behavior - that is, he thought it was OK because in the culture where he comes from, apparently it's OK to fondle little boys and take naked pictures of them.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"? Is there a limit? Or not? If there's a limit, where do you place the line?

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8234733&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Yeah, duh! There are limits to pretty much everything. You didnt need such an extreme example to make that point.

Or, he could be a child molesting idiot making up excuses, and his culture has nothing to do with it. Those of us who arent bigots tend to take that stance.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh wait, I forgot, your racism isnt bad because its not 'organized'.

OUR racism, buddy. Don't bother denying it.

Maybe Mr.Muhammed shouldn't have stated that cultural differences were at fault. Because, you know, that could lead to people thinking that his culture endorses child molestation. That tends to happen when you say "It's not me, it's my culture!".

Yes, if they happen to have a tendency to accept, without question, the word of a child molester.

Most of us however don't take the justifications of a convicted sex offender to be an accurate and objective view of reality though. Because, you know, they're child molesters, not anthropologists.

But way to go, if a convicted criminal has an excuse (which blames "culture" instead of himself), he must be right. Also, society made him do it. Also the woman was asking for it. Also God made me do it. Wah wah wah wah.

Is there anyone reasonable here who wishes to take up FO's argument in his stead, since he's not going to participate? Or should I just sorta leave this alone since I've made my point.

If cultural differences could excuse illegal behaviour, any sort of legal system would be a farce.
Cultural tolerance can only go so far, as soon as people are actually getting (involuntarily) hurt a line needs to be drawn.
This sounds good. I like this.
what culture is this anyways ???
I'm gonna guess one he made up in an attempt to get away with child molestation.
Legal accomodations are still "within the law". Something tells me that in the US, you aren't going to get an exception for fondling naked children.
Sure you are. It's called "being a paediatrician".
Well, considering that we are talking about the country that has been known to take children away from parents after a drug store worker developing holiday pictures informed the police that the kids had in fact been *gasp* naked on the pictures of the camping trip, there's a fair chance all this is about is a hug and a kiss.
FWIW, FOX makes mention of nude pictures on Kudsy's mobile.
Just out of curiousity, who gets to decide if the law is stupid?
LG....
William Shatner. *nod*
....ok, Shatner.
To be fair, the only reason you're not is to spite him.
There's nothing fair about that suggestion at all.
I got sick of Trostia's shit and put him on ignore, and all I did was let him know so he could save his breath.
Yeah, informing someone you have them on ignore is flamebaiting, generally.
Maybe Mr.Muhammed
Mr. Kudsy.
shouldn't have stated that cultural differences were at fault. Because, you know, that could lead to people thinking that his culture endorses child molestation. That tends to happen when you say "It's not me, it's my culture!".

Please, since when has anyone seriously taken the words of a child molester at face value? Should we start believing that they really have a loving relationship with their victims?

Please, since when has anyone seriously taken the words of a child molester at face value? Should we start believing that they really have a loving relationship with their victims?

So we should just ignore what he said and assume that there's nothing wrong with his culture?

Is there anyone reasonable here who wishes to take up FO's argument in his stead, since he's not going to participate? Or should I just sorta leave this alone since I've made my point.
Your point was made for you the moment he started trolling in support of the argument. Personally, I think it's become abundantly clear that no coherent or realistic argument can be made in support of the claim that this pedophile was following a cultural tradition. It was clearly nothing but yet another attempt at Muslim bashing.

OUR racism, buddy. Don't bother denying it.

:rolleyes: Still tooting that horn, eh pal? Guess what, Ill take your "everyone is a racist even if they deny it!" theory seriously when you have evidence and your not just trying to justify your own.

So we should just ignore what he said and assume that there's nothing wrong with his culture?

Unless there is more evidence then his word that it really was his culture, then yes, we should ignore it.

Unless you have more evidence...?

Here in the US, it's traditional that with certain cultures, the news media will not identify the culture in question unless it's one that they don't like.

So, for some pedophile-loving cultures, such as the more wacky offshoots of the Mormon Church, the media feels free to identify the culture.

Or if it's a Catholic priest - sure, go ahead and identify.

If it's remotely possible that the culture is associated with people who fly airliners into buildings, the culture is not mentioned.

What a load of bullshit. Child molestation is not a part of Catholic, Mormon or Muslim culture. It HAPPENS in those groups. It also happens outside of them. But it is not an acceptable practice in any of them. In my many anthropology classes, I have read about exactly ONE tribal culture that allows what we would consider child molestation, and though it's an offensive practice by our standards, it is not sexual in nature in that culture. ONE. This guy was trying any defense he could think of to get away with molestation, and you damn well know it--you'd just rather play dumb and moan about how we're too PC and inclusive.

Your point was made for you the moment he started trolling in support of the argument. Personally, I think it's become abundantly clear that no coherent or realistic argument can be made in support of the claim that this pedophile was following a cultural tradition. It was clearly nothing but yet another attempt at Muslim bashing.

Indeed, its been that way since page one.

So we should just ignore what he said and assume that there's nothing wrong with his culture?

We should ignore what he said. He's accused of child molestation and blaming it on something. David Berkowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz) said that an ancient demon in his neighbour's dog made him kill people. Should we arrest the dog and start examining it for evidence of demonic possession?

As for his culture "we" have no need to make any kind of judgement about it. Why on earth would we?

So again, while nothing explicitly reads they will have sex with them, the talk about them being as virgins and having freshness would imply that in the Islamic heaven, men will have young boys to "serve" them, with a sexual tone.

1 Samuel 18:3-18:4 "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

2 Samuel 1:26 "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

1 Samuel 18:3-18:4 "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

2 Samuel 1:26 "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

So Christians are supposed to touch kids too.

But Im sure to Zilam this is somehow different:rolleyes:

You know, Afghani culture encourages elderly men who like Skeksis to marry thirteen year old girls and molest them. Therefore, Afghanis suck.

Its true, I read it in "The Punisher" and a Chick Pamphlet.

You know, Afghani culture encourages elderly men who like Skeksis to marry thirteen year old girls and molest them. Therefore, Afghanis suck.

Its true, I read it in "The Punisher" and a Chick Pamphlet.

As your post count approaches 666 I find you all the more convincing somehow.......

As your post count approaches 666 I find you all the more convincing somehow.......

Its okay. If I turn out to be the child of the devil that catalyzes the end of the world and brings years of tribulation, torment, and the continued decline of Mike Meyers, well...I'll blame my culture.

And FO will believe me.

Its okay. If I turn out to be the child of the devil that catalyzes the end of the world and brings years of tribulation, torment, and the continued decline of Mike Meyers, well...I'll blame my culture.

And FO will believe me.

Sigged :)

A) I do not believe you about what Christian Arabs name or do not name their children because I do not believe you are an authority on naming habits of Arabs in general. I think you're just talking out your ass on that one, particularly since you offer nothing but your say-so as support of your argument.
WTF? Jews do not name their sons "Jesus", not even Spanish-speaking Jews-- can you figure out why?
I cannot possibly imagine a more specifically Islamic name than "servant of Muhammad". Come on, this requires only the tiniest shred of common sense here.
B) Are you claiming now that this person was actually behaving according to a cultural tradition of molesting boys? If so, I suppose you have evidence that such a tradition actually exists. I look forward to seeing it.
WTF???
I have claimed nothing whatsoever about the merits of any claim that he comes from a child-molesting tradition; I don't even know whether he even SAID any such thing or whether Fox is just making that up. All I have done is point out that his name is as obviously Muslim as Fang Li-zhi is obviously Chinese, in response to a question as to why anyone would think he was Muslim.

WTF? Jews do not name their sons "Jesus", not even Spanish-speaking Jews-- can you figure out why?
I cannot possibly imagine a more specifically Islamic name than "servant of Muhammad". Come on, this requires only the tiniest shred of common sense here.
No, what it requires is a willingness to ignore everything I've just said in order to continue insisting you're right. Hint: You can't prove anything about what non-Muslim Arabs do by making the exact same airy suppositions about what an entirely different group does.

Look down. There's no ground under you.

WTF???
I have claimed nothing whatsoever about the merits of any claim that he comes from a child-molesting tradition; I don't even know whether he even SAID any such thing or whether Fox is just making that up. All I have done is point out that his name is as obviously Muslim as Fang Li-zhi is obviously Chinese, in response to a question as to why anyone would think he was Muslim.
Sigh.

1) Chinese is a language. Muslim is not. Arabic, however, is a language. His name is not Muslim. It's Arabic. Perhaps a Muslim would be most likely to have a Muslim name, but anyone can have an Arabic name.

2) Chinese is also an ethnicity. So is Arabic. However, Muslim is not, and neither is the man in question, seeing as he is from Sierra Leone. There is not an automatic connection between this man, his Arabic name, and Islam.

3) The fact that Abdul Mohammad can be translated as "servant of Mohammad" does not mean that the person bearing that name is a Muslim because:

A) You have to practice a religion to be a <name of the religion>. If he doesn't practice Islam, then he's not a Muslim, regardless of what his name is. Since we don't know if he is a religious person, you cannot say that his "Muslim name" means he is a Muslim.

B) Plenty of people in the world bear names referencing religions they do not practice or believe in. Do you know any atheists named Michael or John? Michael means "who resembles God." John means "the Lord is gracious." Explain how their names tell us that they're actually Christians or Jews, not atheists.

4) My point is that your claim that the Muslim-bashing posters in the thread can know that the man in the story is a Muslim because of his name is bogus because, as I have explained, just having that kind of a name does not mean that the person is a Muslim or an Arab or anything else.

5) As to the part that had you wtf-ing: Welcome to the thread you joined. That's what the argument is about.

As your post count approaches 666 I find you all the more convincing somehow.......
Dammit, boy, it's 616!
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/arsespank.gif

to me, the real question is: "what is the most rational basis for such limits?" how do you arrive at that?

for me the avoidance of causing suffering, and yes, even allowing that none of us are infallible about that, but even none the less, is as much of an answer as there can ever be. no answer that is chauvinistic or biased can ever logically be.

one can say "screw logic" and many do. but how rational is that?
doing so certain isn't free for any of us, even more certainly not for all of us together, whatever our culture, whatever even, its world of origin.

of course this still isn't an absolute solution because indeed it begs the question of the influence of culture on what is experienced as suffering. and perhaps there in lies the crux of the matter.

so while it may seem rationally necessary for there to be such limits, is there any really honestly unbiased means of establishing them?

there are limits.
law trumps culture every time

And from what is law derived if not prevailing cultural norms?

And from what is law derived if not prevailing cultural norms?

this be an absolute truth, for better or worse, and as often the one as the other.

and from what are cultural norms derived? as much as anything else, oddly enough, the influence of storytelling. thus entertainment is far from the innocent pastime in modern dominant society it is taken so often taken for. this is something indigenous cultures seem to understand better then our 'modern' world appears to.

i don't think corporate media's infotainment is at all innocently ignorant of this phenomena either.
(even to the degree it is also concerned with selling advertising space which is of course its more immediate bread and butter)

this be an absolute truth, for better or worse, and as often the one as the other.

and from what are cultural norms derived? as much as anything else, oddly enough, the influence of storytelling. thus entertainment is far from the innocent pastime in modern dominant society it is taken so often taken for. this is something indigenous cultures seem to understand better then our 'modern' world appears to.

i don't think corporate media's infotainment is at all innocently ignorant of this phenomena either.
(even to the degree it is also concerned with selling advertising space which is of course its more immediate bread and butter)

That is disturbingly true, given the content of much contemporary popular culture.

Never better evidenced than by Disney; an entire generation of largely urban, middle class children inculcated into a saccharine, unqualifiedly positive view of nature, with eco-zealotry the result.

Never better evidenced than by Disney; an entire generation of largely urban, middle class children inculcated into a saccharine, unqualifiedly positive view of nature, with eco-zealotry the result.


Better a diet of the Telegraph and Mail, resulting in a home-counties-cenrtric homophobic, xenophobic and dismissive attitude, with Zombie Thatcher in power in perpetuity as a result.

i'm not so sure i'd say never better evidenced, but i've always somewhat doubted old walt ever actually understood the dependence of predators on their prey, nor that by eating them, they were CO-OPERATING in maintaining the balance of their ecological communities.

(unlike indigenous cultures, that generally DO understand these things.)

Better a diet of the Telegraph and Mail, resulting in a home-counties-cenrtric homophobic, xenophobic and dismissive attitude, with Zombie Thatcher in power in perpetuity as a result.

Try not to jump to too many conclusions will you?

On a tangential note; Zombie Thatcher and Vampiric Howard. Hmmm.....

i'm not so sure i'd say never better evidenced, but i've always somewhat doubted old walt ever actually understood the dependence of predators on their prey, nor that by eating them, they were CO-OPERATING in maintaining the balance of their ecological communities.

(unlike indigenous cultures, that generally DO understand these things.)
I don't think he cared - he was trying to make money any way he could.

A film where Bambi got its throat ripped out by a pack of wolves after being orphaned would have been a very different film, one unlikely to garner ol' Walt much more acclaim or dosh.

I don't think he cared - he was trying to make money any way he could.

A film where Bambi got its throat ripped out by a pack of wolves after being orphaned would have been a very different film, one unlikely to garner ol' Walt much more acclaim or dosh.

I'm not sure. By all accounts, Walt Disney was a little more culturally informed, and interested, than the average billionaire. But yes, Bambi being killed too might have limited sales somewhat.

Um...you guys know that Walt didn't write Bambi, right? It was from children's novel.

Bambi, A Life in the Woods, Felix Salten, 1923.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi

Also, unless you are going to suggest that this man's alleged crime was a result of watching violent television, you are all veering off topic.

The law, of course, is a cultural construct and is inherently biased towards the culture that produced it. But that point has already been addressed by another poster in this thread. If a person from one culture moves to a place where another culture is dominant, and he feels that culture treats him unfairly with its laws, he can advocate to have the laws changed according to the systems allowed in that other culture, just like everyone else in that culture does.

Just being from a place where it's okay to diddle boys does not create a license to diddle boys in other places where it's not okay. If those other places respect other aspects of your culture that does not mean that they respect aspects of your culture that violate their laws.

And of course, it has NOT been established that this person comes from a place where diddling boys is traditionally allowed.

I repeat: That HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"? Is there a limit? Or not? If there's a limit, where do you place the line?


Yes. There is a limit. It is the law. Law pwns cultural differences, religion etc. The very exercise of any freedom/right MUST be kept within the borders of law.

Cultural differences doesn't give you the right to break the law. However, it may entitle you to legal accomodation.
...So the question is; Did he have a permit?

take a complimentary apple pie from one of your admirers, sir.:hail:

Yes. There is a limit. It is the law. Law pwns cultural differences, religion etc. The very exercise of any freedom/right MUST be kept within the borders of law.
Not necessarily. Civil disobedience is a case in which an unjust law is challenged by breaking it. See the US Civil Rights movements and anti-war movements.

But here's the big difference: When civil rights protesters engage in civil disobedience, and they get arrested for breaking the law -- THEY DON'T TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF IT. They do not claim some kind of a priori right to break the law that should let them off the legal hook.

EDIT: Here's a second big difference: A claim that a law in the US (or wherever) shouldn't apply to you because there's no such law in Sierra Leone ( or wherever) boils down to little more than "but I really want to do it, so you should let me." That is NOT the same as an argument that a law is abusive to human and/or civil rights of an entire group of people.

Not necessarily. Civil disobedience is a case in which an unjust law is challenged by breaking it. *snippity snippity*...
.

Yay. Also civil disobedience is usually aimed at having the laws changed (that is, c.d. is a political action consistent within the idea of democracy), not at a "I'll just fuckin' do what I fuckin' want ter do, fuck the law!" sort of thing.

1) Chinese is a language. Muslim is not.

Sigh. I was comparing the degree of blatant obviousness.
Arabic, however, is a language. His name is not Muslim. It's Arabic. Perhaps a Muslim would be most likely to have a Muslim name, but anyone can have an Arabic name.

SIGH. Thinking that he is "Arab" would be as stupidly wrong an assumption (there are many languages spoken in Sierra Leone, but Arabic is not one of them) as thinking that someone named "Jesus" is an Aramaic-speaker. The name is RELIGIOUS, specifically, ISLAMIC.
2) Chinese is also an ethnicity. So is Arabic. However, Muslim is not, and neither is the man in question, seeing as he is from Sierra Leone.

60% of the population of Sierra Leone is Muslim (http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/sierra-leone/inter-religious-council.php). None of them speak Arabic as their day-to-day language: it is their religious, liturgical language.
There is not an automatic connection between this man, his Arabic name, and Islam.
You are not aware of any connection between Muhammad and Islam?????

So, in our multicultural world, what limit do you place on "respecting the culture of others"?

Since there is one objectively and universally correct moral code, the limit is the extent to which a culture's practices respect that moral code.

Since there is one objectively and universally correct moral code, the limit is the extent to which a culture's practices respect that moral code.

Heh you are joking here right?:D

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Of course there are, and should be, limits on what sort of "cultural" practices are legally permitted and tolerated.

The predominant culture in my country, for instance, has a rich history of culturally-accepted or even culturally-mandated domestic abuse. Beating one's wife and/or children has, traditionally, been viewed as totally appropriate and often commendable. But this does not mean that we should legally permit domestic abuse.

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Ever play Bioshock? It's an excellent game, I think you'd like it.

A man chooses, a slave obeys!

It's been suggested to me before, but it's not really my thing.

My computer-game interests tend towards Madden NFL, NASCAR Thunder, flight simulators, and the like.

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Ohh God you are one of them huh!

Ever play Bioshock? It's an excellent game, I think you'd like it.

A man chooses, a slave obeys!

Of course Bioshock is one of the more notable examples of Misaimed Fandom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom) where people just don't seem to quite grasp that Rapture- including its dystopian breakdown- is what happens when Objectivism has a rampant field day.

Sigh. I was comparing the degree of blatant obviousness.

SIGH. Thinking that he is "Arab" would be as stupidly wrong an assumption (there are many languages spoken in Sierra Leone, but Arabic is not one of them) as thinking that someone named "Jesus" is an Aramaic-speaker. The name is RELIGIOUS, specifically, ISLAMIC.

60% of the population of Sierra Leone is Muslim (http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/sierra-leone/inter-religious-council.php). None of them speak Arabic as their day-to-day language: it is their religious, liturgical language.

You are not aware of any connection between Muhammad and Islam?????
Seriously, how long did it take you to eliminate all the other content around those remarks in order to isolate them in that way so that you could just blindly keep insisting on getting your way without actually answering any of the challenges?


Show me any proof whatsoever that the alleged molester is a Muslim.

>> You claim his name is proof.

You don't have to be a Muslim to have that name.

>> You claim that nobody but a Muslim would have that name.

Prove that claim.

>> You claim that Jews don't give Christian names to their children.

That claim about what Jews do is no more supported than your claim about who would ever name their kid Abdul Muhammad. Jews and Christians often use the same names pulled from the same Bible. Atheists, pagans, Buddhists, and whatnot, often are also given names pulled from the Bible. Having a religious name is not proof that you belong to a given religion -- in the same way that having an ethnic name is not proof that you are of that ethnicity.

>> You just keep repeating your earlier claims.

Conclusion: You have failed to support your claim that the man's name tells us that he is a Muslim. Therefore, I stand by my (and others') argument that the OP's (and others') claim that he is a Muslim is an unsupported assumption.

To expand that to bring it back to the actual topic of the thread, I also stand by my assertion that the fact that the claim that he is a Muslim is only an assumption goes to show the emptiness of their entire argument that he committed the alleged crime due to a cultural difference, which itself is only meant to insult Muslims by claiming that they are child molesters.

By the way, the man's non-Arab ethnicity only matters insofar as it goes to show the OP and his supporters' failure to define what "culture" they think produced this alleged boy fondler.

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
*falls about laughing* Ah, thanks, I needed that. :D

Of course Bioshock is one of the more notable examples of Misaimed Fandom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom) where people just don't seem to quite grasp that Rapture- including its dystopian breakdown- is what happens when Objectivism has a rampant field day.

Oh, I wouldn't claim that Rapture is automatically the result, or even that objectivism is inherently bad. But it provides philosophical food for thought either way, in a nice pleasing telekinetic undersea-art deco-napalm-your-way-to-victory setting. There's something in it for the whole family!

How come, right, in certain Islamic countries where it's OK to marry/have sex with etc little kids (Saudi Arabia for example), the people move from there and then expect that everyone will accept this in their new country?

How come, right, in certain Islamic countries where it's OK to marry/have sex with etc little kids (Saudi Arabia for example), the people move from there and then expect that everyone will accept this in their new country?

How come right, in certian forums where it's okay to make sweeping generalisations, the people move from there and then expect that everyone will except this in their new forum?

Seriously, how long did it take you to eliminate all the other content around those remarks in order to isolate them in that way so that you could just blindly keep insisting on getting your way without actually answering any of the challenges?
I intended to keep going point by point but I just got tired.

Show me any proof whatsoever that the alleged molester is a Muslim.
If his name was "Moishe Goldstein" I would think the inference that he was Jewish a near certainly. What about the parents who named their kid "Adolf Hitler"? Do you think it likely that they are Marxists, or that they donated heavily to the Obama campaign?
It is conceivable that out of six billion people on the planet, there might be one non-Muslim named "Abdul Muhammad", but I think the chance that there is even ONE such person is actually quite low. It is as specifically Islamic name as there could be, much more so than "Moishe Goldstein" is specifically Jewish. In particular, I doubt there would be a non-Muslim with such a name in Sierra Leone, a highly polarized and violent society where non-Muslims do not get along with Muslims at all.
You don't have to be a Muslim to have that name.
Prove that. Show me ONE non-Muslim with that name, anywhere on the planet.
>> You claim that nobody but a Muslim would have that name.
Prove that claim.
The burden of proof is on the side making the POSITIVE claim, not the NEGATIVE. You need to show me one counterexample: it is not up to me to list all six billion names of everyone on the planet and say "This person isn't an Abdul Muhammad" and "This person is an Abdul Muhammad and a Muslim" for each one.
Jews and Christians often use the same names pulled from the same Bible.
JEWS DO NOT NAME THEIR CHILDREN "JESUS"! Jesus fucking Christ, what is wrong with you that you have to argue against such a blatantly obvious point?
I also stand by my assertion that the fact that the claim that he is a Muslim is only an assumption goes to show the emptiness of their entire argument that he committed the alleged crime due to a cultural difference, which itself is only meant to insult Muslims by claiming that they are child molesters.
All that may be so. I have expressed no opinion on that. All I said was that his name is blatantly obviously a Muslim name, which it is. Whether he is a "good" Muslim is as uninteresting to me as arguments about who does or doesn't count as a "real Christian"; his cultural background is Muslim Sierra Leonean. Is there any merit to the claim that the Muslim Sierra Leonean culture approves of boy-diddling? I am doubtful, and I am for that matter doubtful that he even said such a thing, given that Fox is the only source.

How come, right, in certain Islamic countries where it's OK to marry/have sex with etc little kids (Saudi Arabia for example), the people move from there and then expect that everyone will accept this in their new country?

This happen where/when?

This happen where/when?

In the OP news story.

In the OP news story.

And this is the part where you prove that this person is from Saudi Arabia, as the quoted posted suggested, or that where this person is from condones child abuse.

But you wont prove either.

And this is the part where you prove that this person is from Saudi Arabia, as the quoted posted suggested, or that where this person is from condones child abuse.

But you wont prove either.

He's from a country where he personally insists that child abuse is not child abuse in his country. Where did I say he was from Saudi?

I believe a previous poster said, "like Saudi Arabia". But it doesn't have to be Saudi.

Oh, I get it.

He's from Maryland.

I heard they were pretty pedo there.

He's from a country where he personally insists that child abuse is not child abuse in his country. Where did I say he was from Saudi?


Ah yes, so now we take kiddy toucher's words at face value, right? When they meet with the sting officer, and they say "Oh shit! I wasnt going to touch kids, I was just trying to teach him a lesson about the dangers of the internet!" he should be free to go right?

Show me some facts. Lets see some evidence that this guy's culture accepts child molestation.

I intended to keep going point by point but I just got tired.

If his name was "Moishe Goldstein" I would think the inference that he was Jewish a near certainly. What about the parents who named their kid "Adolf Hitler"? Do you think it likely that they are Marxists, or that they donated heavily to the Obama campaign?
It is conceivable that out of six billion people on the planet, there might be one non-Muslim named "Abdul Muhammad", but I think the chance that there is even ONE such person is actually quite low. It is as specifically Islamic name as there could be, much more so than "Moishe Goldstein" is specifically Jewish. In particular, I doubt there would be a non-Muslim with such a name in Sierra Leone, a highly polarized and violent society where non-Muslims do not get along with Muslims at all.

Prove that. Show me ONE non-Muslim with that name, anywhere on the planet.

The burden of proof is on the side making the POSITIVE claim, not the NEGATIVE. You need to show me one counterexample: it is not up to me to list all six billion names of everyone on the planet and say "This person isn't an Abdul Muhammad" and "This person is an Abdul Muhammad and a Muslim" for each one.

JEWS DO NOT NAME THEIR CHILDREN "JESUS"! Jesus fucking Christ, what is wrong with you that you have to argue against such a blatantly obvious point?

All that may be so. I have expressed no opinion on that. All I said was that his name is blatantly obviously a Muslim name, which it is. Whether he is a "good" Muslim is as uninteresting to me as arguments about who does or doesn't count as a "real Christian"; his cultural background is Muslim Sierra Leonean. Is there any merit to the claim that the Muslim Sierra Leonean culture approves of boy-diddling? I am doubtful, and I am for that matter doubtful that he even said such a thing, given that Fox is the only source.
You were asked for proof first. I see no reason why I should have to meet a standard you don't even try to meet yourself.

All you are doing here is repeating the same claims without adding anything to them that would tend to answer my objections.

You made a positive assertion of fact. My positive assertion is that your statement cannot be proven to be a fact. You have failed to show that it is a fact. Your constant haranguing about the assumptions you make about other religious groups does not give credibility to your assumptions about this one Muslim. Your failure to support your claims is the support for my claim.

You were asked for proof first. I see no reason why I should have to meet a standard you don't even try to meet yourself.

Maybe he was expressing an opinion, just as you often do. In your words, opinions require no proof. Or are you the only one who is not required to prove anything?

He's from a country where he personally insists that child abuse is not child abuse in his country.

Oh, well, he's a child molester, so let's just take him at his word when he says he's not responsible for his crimes.

There is no reason he might have to lie and no reason that he, as an upstanding child molester, might not be an authority on law.

This happen where/when?

The Alma Mater made a thread about this a week ago or so. A Saudi man married an 8 year old girl and the courts judged it fully legal.

Oh, well, he's a child molester, so let's just take him at his word when he says he's not responsible for his crimes.

There is no reason he might have to lie and no reason that he, as an upstanding child molester, might not be an authority on law.

Given that some countries do like child molesting, and some religions encourage it (whether offshoot Mormons or tribal Muslims), his argument might have some truth to it.

Can you prove he's lying?

He's from a country where he personally insists that child abuse is not child abuse in his country. Where did I say he was from Saudi?

I believe a previous poster said, "like Saudi Arabia". But it doesn't have to be Saudi.
In other words, you are asking us to take the word of a single person trying to avoid punishment for a sex crime as an indictment of an entire group of people, apparently spanning several nations. And you expect us to take that one person's word as the evidence, without you having to show any other evidence that shows that what he says is true. Gosh, I wonder why we're not going to do that?

The Alma Mater made a thread about this a week ago or so. A Saudi man married an 8 year old girl and the courts judged it fully legal.

Whose courts?

In other words, you are asking us to take the word of a single person trying to avoid punishment for a sex crime as an indictment of an entire group of people, apparently spanning several nations. And you expect us to take that one person's word as the evidence, without you having to show any other evidence that shows that what he says is true. Gosh, I wonder why we're not going to do that?

Maybe you should consider that several countries turn a blind eye to this sort of thing for traditional and religious reasons, and that even in the US, some weird religions think it's OK.

Maybe you should try to prove first that it's not acceptable for any religious or traditional reason anywhere in Sierra Leone (his native country) before you say, "he's a liar".

Maybe he was expressing an opinion, just as you often do. In your words, opinions require no proof. Or are you the only one who is not required to prove anything?
What were you saying to me in another thread? Oh, yeah, maybe you should try reading. He asserted a statement of fact. It's in the thread.

If he'd like to switch that to opinion mode, I'm sure he can do that without your help.

Given that some countries do like child molesting, and some religions encourage it (whether offshoot Mormons or tribal Muslims), his argument might have some truth to it.

Can you prove he's lying?

Ah! Now we're getting to the substantive part of the argument where we ask you to prove your assertions above, and you go silent, and then disappear.

Maybe you should consider that several countries turn a blind eye to this sort of thing for traditional and religious reasons, and that even in the US, some weird religions think it's OK.

Maybe you should try to prove first that it's not acceptable for any religious or traditional reason anywhere in Sierra Leone (his native country) before you say, "he's a liar".
Maybe you should take some advice that was recently given to you in reference to me.

Perhaps you'll find that easier to do than to follow the common advice that it is bad form to demand that someone prove a negative. It shows that your argument is weak.

Given that some countries do like child molesting

"Countries like child molesting"? Do they also "like the color blue?"

Your sweeping generalizations do not an argument make.

The Alma Mater made a thread about this a week ago or so. A Saudi man married an 8 year old girl and the courts judged it fully legal.

And this is why sometimes cultural norms should trump legal ones.

The poll is too simplistic. Both culture and law can be used to oppress or liberate. The ones that oppresses is wrong and the one that liberates is right, according to me. Deciding that either one or the other should always win is too narrow minded.

Ah! Now we're getting to the substantive part of the argument where we ask you to prove your assertions above, and you go silent, and then disappear.

I proved that the suspect believed he was continuing his home traditions here in the US, which happened to be illegal.

Nowhere, did I say he was from Saudi. So why should I have to prove that?

You can do better than that, wannabe lawyer.

I proved that the suspect believed he was continuing his home traditions here in the US, which happened to be illegal.


Actually, you showed that he claimed he was. Im still waiting for that evidence that there is any part of his home countries culture that approves of child molestation.


You can do better than that, wannabe lawyer.

Better to be in the process then not be but pretend you are a lawyer, eh dk?

Actually, you showed that he claimed he was. Im still waiting for that evidence that there is any part of his home countries culture that approves of child molestation.

Sierra Leone hardly qualifies as a real country. Tell me, how well documented is it online?

And are you saying, "if you can't find a source online, there's no evidence"?

Could be a systematic pattern of abuse in that country, because there's been no effective government - even the International Red Cross and the UN has spent a lot of time literally fucking children in Sierra Leone.

Better to be in the process then not be but pretend you are a lawyer, eh dk?

Better to not suck at being one in school.

I proved that the suspect believed he was continuing his home traditions here in the US, which happened to be illegal.
Moving your goalposts. In the OP and the title of this thread, YOU made the claim that this was a case of actual cultural difference, and you have since then repeatedly insisted that there are cultures that do condone child molestation. You did that in the very post Neesika was responding to.

Now you're trying to claim that you were only talking about what this one individual may have believed.

Now, of course, regardless of what he believed, that does not guarantee that he is right, but that's beside the point. The point is, your statement above is false, because you have been making a claim of fact about other cultures throughout this entire thread, and THAT is what you have been challenged to show proof about.

Nowhere, did I say he was from Saudi. So why should I have to prove that?
That is not what you were asked to prove. The post Neesika responded to said only that there are cultures that condone child molestation. THAT is what Neesika has asked you to prove.

You can do better than that, wannabe lawyer.
And indeed, she did, inasmuch as she did not do what you scolded her for.

I'm kinda with Bill Maher on this issue. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance, nor should we allow "cultural differences" to supersede the law.

Sierra Leone hardly qualifies as a real country. Tell me, how well documented is it online?

And are you saying, "if you can't find a source online, there's no evidence"?

Could be a systematic pattern of abuse in that country, because there's been no effective government - even the International Red Cross and the UN has spent a lot of time literally fucking children in Sierra Leone.


So, what it boils down to is, we can take the kiddy touchers words at face value, as well as your own (which is grounded soley in your hatred of Islam), or we can reject it because there is insuffecient evidence.


Which one do you think a rational person would do?

Moving your goalposts.

Haven't moved them. You're trying to hold me to the Saudi thing, when I wasn't the one who brought that up.

Apparently, the UN is ok with fucking children in Sierra Leone.

I proved that the suspect believed he was continuing his home traditions here in the US, which happened to be illegal.

Nowhere, did I say he was from Saudi. So why should I have to prove that?

You can do better than that, wannabe lawyer.
You're not very good at this 'debate' thing, are you? Reread the post in question:

Given that some countries do like child molesting, and some religions encourage it (whether offshoot Mormons or tribal Muslims), his argument might have some truth to it.

Can you prove he's lying?

Your assertions above are that:

some countries like child molesting
some religions encourage it (child molestation)


You rely on these assertions to suggest that the person in question might rightfully be relying on existing cultural or religious norms.

You see, unless you can prove your two assertions, your conclusion falls flat.

Now. You provide proof for assertion 1 and 2.

So, what it boils down to is, we can take the kiddy touchers words at face value, as well as your own (which is grounded soley in your hatred of Islam), or we can reject it because there is insuffecient evidence.


Which one do you think a rational person would do?

The UN says it's ok to fuck children in Sierra Leone. In fact, they did it wholesale. You don't have to be a Moslem.

Sierra Leone hardly qualifies as a real country. Tell me, how well documented is it online?

And are you saying, "if you can't find a source online, there's no evidence"?

Could be a systematic pattern of abuse in that country, because there's been no effective government - even the International Red Cross and the UN has spent a lot of time literally fucking children in Sierra Leone.
You know, when you make accusations like that without proof it's called slander (libel when you do it in writing).

Haven't moved them. You're trying to hold me to the Saudi thing, when I wasn't the one who brought that up.

Apparently, the UN is ok with fucking children in Sierra Leone.
Kindly show me where I said anything at all about Saudi Arabia. I'll wait.

You're not very good at this 'debate' thing, are you? Reread the post in question:

Your assertions above are that:

some countries like child molesting
some religions encourage it (child molestation)


You rely on these assertions to suggest that the person in question might rightfully be relying on existing cultural or religious norms.

You see, unless you can prove your two assertions, your conclusion falls flat.

Now. You provide proof for assertion 1 and 2.

Where did I say "rightfully"? Eh?

The only way we could conclusively prove this would be to go to his home village in Sierra Leone, and interview the people there.

Since you know we can't do that, you're going to say, "ha, I win". Which is bullshit. You have no ability to prove otherwise.

Kindly show me where I said anything at all about Saudi Arabia. I'll wait.

No Name Left used Saudi Arabia as an example. I called him on it. DK keeps bringing it up to distract from his inability to provide proof.


Apparently, the UN is ok with fucking children in Sierra Leone.



How dd you come to this conclusion?

No Name Left used Saudi Arabia as an example. I called him on it. DK keeps bringing it up to distract from his inability to provide proof.

I know. I've been reading the thread. ;)

You know, when you make accusations like that without proof it's called slander (libel when you do it in writing).

You're saying the UNHCR wasn't fucking little children wholesale in Sierra Leone?

You're saying the UNHCR wasn't fucking little children wholesale in Sierra Leone?
I'm adding it to the list of things I'm waiting for you to show proof of.

I'm adding it to the list of things I'm waiting for you to show proof of.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1842512.stm

You're saying the UNHCR wasn't fucking little children wholesale in Sierra Leone?

The actions of the UN are irrelevant as they are not members of Sierra Leone culture.

Do the Sierra Leone natives have a culture that approves of child molestation?

I'm adding it to the list of things I'm waiting for you to show proof of.

I just posted a link - waiting for you to say the BBC article doesn't say anything about child sex.

The actions of the UN are irrelevant as they are not members of Sierra Leone culture.

Do the Sierra Leone natives have a culture that approves of child molestation?

And how are we going to find out, other than going there?

Where did I say "rightfully"? Eh? High-larious!

Rightfully in the context of:

"You rely on these assertions to suggest that the person in question might rightfully be relying on existing cultural or religious norms..."

relates to the assertions you've made that such cultural/religious norms exist, and therefore can be called upon in an attempt to justify certain behaviour. Yet you've yet to prove that said cultural/religious norms exist at all.

Rightfully, in this context, does not mean 'any behaviour relying on existing cultural/religious norms is justified'.

This must all be terribly confusing for you.

The only way we could conclusively prove this would be to go to his home village in Sierra Leone, and interview the people there. No, actually, what you need to do, once again is prove your assertions that:


some countries like child molesting
some religions encourage it (child molestation)


Surely you can find SOME evidence of these claims. Either in reports from NGOs, anthropologists, or what have you. When 'norms' exist, they are generally not hidden away, they are regarded as 'okay', and therefore will not be that difficult to find information about. That includes practices that are regarded with great repugnance on an international scale, such as FGM...where it is true, exact numbers are difficult to come by, yet nonetheless is a practice rooted in cultural norms that has been documented by a wide range of groups/organisations.

I said nothing about Saudi Arabia, or Sierra Leone or any specific country. I just want you to provide some proof for the claims you have made...I'm sure you've already gotten confused about what claims those were, so I direct you again to the following:


some countries like child molesting
some religions encourage it (child molestation)


Since you know we can't do that, you're going to say, "ha, I win". Which is bullshit. You have no ability to prove otherwise.

You assert, you prove. It's the gold standard.

I just posted a link - waiting for you to say the BBC article doesn't say anything about child sex.
Yeah, you waited all of what -- a minute? Are you hoping that I'll answer fast enough for you to claim I didn't read your article?

Keep your pants on, chief.

some countries like child molesting

Saudi Arabia, among others

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html

some religions encourage it (child molestation)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html


While part of the Saudi government condemns the practice, it's still a legal practice, and still encouraged by clerics.

And how are we going to find out, other than going there?

You could do some research. Start with this thing called Google.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1842512.stm
Okay, I just finished reading the article, and just like the Telegraph article, it does not say what you claim it does and, in fact, specifically states the opposite of some of your argument and strongly suggests the opposite of the rest of your argument.

The article states that the UNHCR and Save The Children were taking immediate remedial action to put an end to the abuses that came to light. This is the exact opposite of your remark that the UNHCR is "apparently" okay with fucking little children and that organization was doing that "wholesale." So all you accomplished with that was to prove that your slander was indeed slander because it was clearly and deliberately a false statement.

In addition, the article makes it clear that the victims and their families complained of the abuses, which strongly suggests the exact opposite of your repeated claims that child molestation is accepted in Sierra Leone. If we believe the BBC, child molestation is not actually okay in that country. So, not content with slandering the UNHCR, you have also been slandering the entire nation of Sierra Leone.

Well done. I like it when you provide proof your assertions.

Okay, I just finished reading the article, and just like the Telegraph article, it does not say what you claim it does and, in fact, specifically states the opposite of some of your argument and strongly suggests the opposite of the rest of your argument.

The article states that the UNHCR and Save The Children were taking immediate remedial action to put an end to the abuses that came to light. This is the exact opposite of your remark that the UNHCR is "apparently" okay with fucking little children and that organization was doing that "wholesale." So all you accomplished with that was to prove that your slander was indeed slander because it was clearly and deliberately a false statement.

In addition, the article makes it clear that the victims and their families complained of the abuses, which strongly suggests the exact opposite of your repeated claims that child molestation is accepted in Sierra Leone. If we believe the BBC, child molestation is not actually okay in that country. So, not content with slandering the UNHCR, you have also been slandering the entire nation of Sierra Leone.

Well done. I like it when you provide proof your assertions.

Sorry you can't be bothered to do more than read, and sorry you don't realize the UN does this in the Sudan and other countries as well. They've even covered it up - if it weren't for the press, it would remain a dark secret.

So really, at some level they're ok with it. And since you're happy sweeping it under the rug, you must be happy with it, too.

Sorry you can't be bothered to do more than read

"More than read" being a euphemism for "read bigoted and stupid assumptions that aren't there."


So really, at some level they're ok with it. And since you're happy sweeping it under the rug, you must be happy with it, too.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is OK with child molestation. Of course. Yes. Right.

some countries like child molesting

Saudi Arabia, among others

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html

some religions encourage it (child molestation)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479878,00.html


While part of the Saudi government condemns the practice, it's still a legal practice, and still encouraged by clerics.

I'm not sure why you provided the same link twice...

Here's (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,398283,00.html) another article highlighting the cultural and religious debates going on in regards to the practice of allowing children to marry (either other children, or adults).

From this article it can be determined that:

Saudi Arabia allows child marriage, despite widespread protest
Certain Islamic clerics support the pratice, while others decry it


Here is a wiki article on the phenomenon of child marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage) (a source you would have been better off starting with, rather than resorting solely to news articles)

It seems quite clear that in instances where marriages involving children are consummated that 'child molestation' has occurred. It can certainly be argued that even when the consummation happens when the child is actually an adult, that there has been coercion, and sexual abuse (assuming lack of consent).

However, it is false to claim that Saudi Arabia 'likes child molestation'. Child marriage is not the same as child molestation.

This article (http://www.wbez.org/content.aspx?audioID=12511) provides some stats about child victims of abuse in Saudi Arabia. These instances are not instances of abuse within child marriages...child marriages in Saudi Arabia are not very common, according to human rights groups...while child abuse is a problem in all nations. That problem is exacerbated when social systems discourage reporting...yet this does not in fact prove your assertion that child molestation is something that is tolerated, 'liked' or in fact okay in Saudi Arabia.

Sorry you can't be bothered to do more than read,
Yeah, it's too bad for you. :D :D


and sorry you don't realize the UN does this in the Sudan and other countries as well. They've even covered it up - if it weren't for the press, it would remain a dark secret.

So really, at some level they're ok with it. And since you're happy sweeping it under the rug, you must be happy with it, too.
Yeah, you're so sorry that I don't just buy what you want to sell that you'll even go as far as slandering me, too. You're so done. Really.

Sorry you can't be bothered to do more than read, and sorry you don't realize the UN does this in the Sudan and other countries as well. They've even covered it up - if it weren't for the press, it would remain a dark secret.

So really, at some level they're ok with it. And since you're happy sweeping it under the rug, you must be happy with it, too.

Damn. You took it too far and now I can't take you seriously. Pffft. Way to ruin it by over-trolling.

Okay, so...because some cultures have child marriage, which I guess you could link to child molestation, that means that...

...this guy's claim that it was his culture that caused him to molest an 11-year old autistic boy...

...is credible, or even credible that he believes it himself?

Any of the cultures referenced would be okay with that, because they have underage marriage?

Its not more likely that he's saying whatever to try to get any kind of defense?

And until we fly to Sierra Leone, and they tell us that, sure, we would condone the fondling of an 11-year old autistic boy in our culture, the UN gave us pamphlets that say its okay....then we should believe him.

'Kay.

You were asked for proof first.

My proof is: he has a name from the Arabic language, although he comes from a country where Arabic is not spoken by anybody, except for religious purposes, by Muslims; and it is not just any Arabic name, but one pledging utter devotion (Abdul is actually closer to "slave of" than "servant of") to the founding prophet of Islam. I am only asking for the barest minimum of common sense here.
The actions of the UN are irrelevant as they are not members of Sierra Leone culture.

False: "[the report] cited lack of regulation and an absence of international staff as possible contributing factors." The problem is that these were indeed members of the local culture, left to their own devices.

My proof is: he has a name from the Arabic language, although he comes from a country where Arabic is not spoken by anybody, except for religious purposes, by Muslims; and it is not just any Arabic name, but one pledging utter devotion (Abdul is actually closer to "slave of" than "servant of") to the founding prophet of Islam. I am only asking for the barest minimum of common sense here.
I know that is what your "proof" is. As I said repeatedly, I reject that "proof" for the reasons I have explained at length several times. I will not go over this again, since you have nothing new to add.

Also, I do realize that, by your constant demands for a "minimum of common sense" you are insulting my intelligence. I get it, you can stop now. You failed to pursuade me that you're right, and you called me an idiot for it.

False: "[the report] cited lack of regulation and an absence of international staff as possible contributing factors." The problem is that these were indeed members of the local culture, left to their own devices.
However, the article also says that the complaints came from local people as well, so that goes againnst the assertion that the culture of Sierra Leone condones child molestation.

Wow, I go to class, and all the remaining arguements can be summoned up with four letters.


Lolz.

I reject that "proof" for the reasons I have explained at length several times.

You have not stated any "reasons" at all. You have simply made absurd and baseless claims: Christians name their children "slave of Muhammad"? No, I have never heard of anything like that, not even once in all of human history: can you supply an example?
Also, I do realize that, by your constant demands for a "minimum of common sense" you are insulting my intelligence.

Don't you have any concept how crazy what you are saying sounds like? You made me look into it, but the more I find the more outlandish it sounds. I take back my comparison to Jews naming their children "Jesus": in the context of a violently polarized society like Sierra Leone, for a non-Muslim to name a child, in Arabic, "slave of Muhammad" is actually more like a Palestinian naming his child "Ariel Sharon".

However, the article also says that the complaints came from local people as well, so that goes againnst the assertion that the culture of Sierra Leone condones child molestation.
It indicates that NOT EVERYBODY there condones child molestation, to be sure. Unfortunately, however, it does appear that there are far too many there who do.

Why would I be?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

I prefer the work of French-Cuban philosopher Anais Nin.

You have not stated any "reasons" at all. You have simply made absurd and baseless claims: Christians name their children "slave of Muhammad"? No, I have never heard of anything like that, not even once in all of human history: can you supply an example?
Yes, I have. You can reject them if you like, but you can't reasonably deny that they exist.

Don't you have any concept how crazy what you are saying sounds like? You made me look into it, but the more I find the more outlandish it sounds. I take back my comparison to Jews naming their children "Jesus": in the context of a violently polarized society like Sierra Leone, for a non-Muslim to name a child, in Arabic, "slave of Muhammad" is actually more like a Palestinian naming his child "Ariel Sharon".
And apparently, personal insults against Muravyets count as rational argument in NSG this week. Plus you're repeating yourself, so I will too. See all my previous posts and consider this matter as concluded as it is obviously ever going to get.

Unless, of course, you have more suggestions you'd like to make about how stupid and crazy I am. I'm sure you could keep an audience entertained for days with that.

It indicates that NOT EVERYBODY there condones child molestation, to be sure. Unfortunately, however, it does appear that there are far too many there who do.
You mean there are sexual predators in Sierra Leone, just like there are in the US, and Canada, and South America, and Europe and Asia? And this shows us what about the culture of Sierra Leone again? Nothing?

And actually the article specifically states there were 67 in that region. That's too many, yes, but hardly an indicator of a cultural tradition.

Yes, I have. You can reject them if you like, but you can't reasonably deny that they exist.

I knew worked with a guy, years ago. Everybody called him "Mo". Found out his name was Mohammad. Was not Muslim.

But, then, I also know a lot of guys named Mark, Dennis, and Paul, and they aren't all gay.


And apparently, personal insults against Muravyets count as rational argument in NSG this week. Plus you're repeating yourself, so I will too. See all my previous posts and consider this matter as concluded as it is obviously ever going to get.

Unless, of course, you have more suggestions you'd like to make about how stupid and crazy I am. I'm sure you could keep an audience entertained for days with that.

Mur, you the most stupidest, dopest, crazy ass chick all up in this NSG.


You mean there are sexual predators in Sierra Leone, just like there are in the US, and Canada, and South America, and Europe and Asia? And this shows us what about the culture of Sierra Leone again? Nothing?

And actually the article specifically states there were 67 in that region. That's too many, yes, but hardly an indicator of a cultural tradition.

You missed his whole point.

It happens, and evidently their culture hasn't been able to stop it, therefore they condone it, the UN hasn't been able to stop it, so they condone it, and you haven't been able to stop it, so you condone it.

Stop touching me.

Oh, well, he's a child molester, so let's just take him at his word when he says he's not responsible for his crimes.

There is no reason he might have to lie and no reason that he, as an upstanding child molester, might not be an authority on law.

Don't act like there isn't plenty of support for his claim. I'm sure we've all, in rich multicultural experience of life, met people from countries and cultures around the world that condoned or even encouraged child molestation. Right? We've all met at least ONE person from a culture that encourages it, surely!

Sierra Leone hardly qualifies as a real country. Tell me, how well documented is it online?

Argument from lack of evidence? So I could make any claim I wanted to about your personal life and, so long as there is little information about your life on the internet, it would be a valid argument?

Haven't moved them. You're trying to hold me to the Saudi thing, when I wasn't the one who brought that up.

Apparently, the UN is ok with fucking children in Sierra Leone.

Child-fucking: not just for evil Muslims anymore, but countries DK doesn't think exist and the United Nations! Tell us who else molests children, DK!

Where did I say "rightfully"? Eh?

The only way we could conclusively prove this would be to go to his home village in Sierra Leone, and interview the people there.

Since you know we can't do that, you're going to say, "ha, I win". Which is bullshit. You have no ability to prove otherwise.

And instead you're saying "ha, I win" because... no one has talked to everyone in his village and determined the child molester is lying.

And instead you're saying "ha, I win" because... no one has talked to everyone in his village and determined the child molester is lying.

I did this one time.

I got caught robbing a bank. I told them it was just part of my culture, in my home country of Smogaria.

They tried to interview the people of Smogaria, but its not well-documented on the internet.

So, it was dismissed at pre-trial motion.

I knew worked with a guy, years ago. Everybody called him "Mo". Found out his name was Mohammad. Was not Muslim.

But, then, I also know a lot of guys named Mark, Dennis, and Paul, and they aren't all gay.
That's what you think. Only gays give gay names to their kids who are obviously therefore gay. Dude, you so missed out. ;)

Mur, you the most stupidest, dopest, crazy ass chick all up in this NSG.
Damn you and your rational arguments. :p

You missed his whole point.

It happens, and evidently their culture hasn't been able to stop it, therefore they condone it, the UN hasn't been able to stop it, so they condone it, and you haven't been able to stop it, so you condone it.

Stop touching me.
You can't make me, therefore you condone the touching. :fluffle:

My proof is: he has a name from the Arabic language, although he comes from a country where Arabic is not spoken by anybody, except for religious purposes, by Muslims; and it is not just any Arabic name, but one pledging utter devotion.

Daniel - God is my judge. Elliott - Jehovah is God. Isabella - devoted to God. I've known people with all of these names who were not Christians, or even religious. Abdul is an extremely common name in much of the world. Because it COMES from Islam does not mean everyone with the name is Muslim, just as not everyone with a name that comes from the bible is Christian.

It indicates that NOT EVERYBODY there condones child molestation, to be sure. Unfortunately, however, it does appear that there are far too many there who do.

The U.S. has child molesters. Not everyone in the U.S. opposes child molestation. Therefore, I am acting according to my culture as a U.S. citizen to molest a child. Show me where logic breaks down.

Daniel - God is my judge. Elliott - Jehovah is God. Isabella - devoted to God. I've known people with all of these names who were not Christians, or even religious. Abdul is an extremely common name in much of the world. Because it COMES from Islam does not mean everyone with the name is Muslim, just as not everyone with a name that comes from the bible is Christian.

Oh, thank goodness for that.

My name is Edward Ippus, and I gotta tell you...I like Mom, and everything, sweet lady, totally, but I just...

I dont think I could've followed through.

Oh, thank goodness for that.

My name is Edward Ippus, and I gotta tell you...I like Mom, and everything, sweet lady, totally, but I just...

I dont think I could've followed through.

I've got some bad news for you: the woman that raised you? That's not your mother.

As for the charming older lady you've been seeing recently...

and your rational arguments. :p

Well, I admit I can't be as rational as "Some cultures have child marriage, therefore this guy fondling an 11-year old autistic boy is attributable to his culture."

But then, that argument is mostly rational in the sense that it can be expressed as a ratio of integers, mainly 0 over 1.

I've got some bad news for you: the woman that raised you? That's not your mother.

As for the charming older lady you've been seeing recently...

Oh, man...

...and that carjacker I shot last year?

Oh, man...

...and that carjacker I shot last year?

Let's just say you're not getting quite the cut of inheritance you expected.

Let's just say you're not getting quite the cut of inheritance you expected.

I'll be fine. We do this in my culture.

Yes, I have. You can reject them if you like, but you can't reasonably deny that they exist.

You have provided examples of Christians named "Abdul Muhammad"? No, you have not. Or do you mean you have provided reasons, other than a baseless assertion that Christians also use that name? No, you have not.

And apparently, personal insults against Muravyets count as rational argument in NSG this week.

I have been careful to insult your "arguments", such as they are, rather than your person.

You mean there are sexual predators in Sierra Leone, just like there are in the US, and Canada, and South America, and Europe and Asia? And this shows us what about the culture of Sierra Leone again? Nothing?

It doesn't show much, nor did I say that it did. I simply pointed out that Gift of God was in error to claim that the UN personnel were from elsewhere, and that the UN blamed the locals.

And actually the article specifically states there were 67 in that region. That's too many, yes, but hardly an indicator of a cultural tradition.
Too many, yes. As a general indicator of the whole culture, quite inadequate, we can agree there.
Daniel - God is my judge. Elliott - Jehovah is God. Isabella - devoted to God. I've known people with all of these names who were not Christians, or even religious.

We are not talking about the degree of personal religiosity of this man, but about what his cultural background was. I bet you the "Daniel", "Elliott", and "Isabella" you knew were all from Western cultures.
Abdul is an extremely common name in much of the world.
The MUSLIM part of the world, namely. I have never heard of it from elsewhere, and the particular combination "Abdul Muhammad" I have grave difficulty believing exists anywhere else.
The U.S. has child molesters. Not everyone in the U.S. opposes child molestation. Therefore, I am acting according to my culture as a U.S. citizen to molest a child. Show me where logic breaks down.
It is a question of how common it is. The UN agency didn't just have a few; it was downright infested with them. I will agree with Muravyets that this case in isolation doesn't prove much: for example, the US Catholic Church turned out to be infested with pedophiles, and while we might speak of a bureaucratic culture within the church of condoning molestation, it would be fairer to say that occupations which give lots of access to vulnerable children tend to attract a disproportionate number of molestors, and that might well be the fairer thing to say.
Look, everybody is assuming here that I am endorsing Hotwife's positions, and attacking me as if I was him. I simply pointed out two things that people said that just weren't true: it was said that there was no reason to think this guy was Muslim, when yes, his name makes it highly probable that he is (I would rate the chances that he is not Muslim as less than one in a billion); and it was said that the molestors in the UN program were not from that country, when the article made a point of saying that they were.

... I simply pointed out that Gift of God was in error to claim that the UN personnel were from elsewhere, and that the UN blamed the locals....

Actually, I claimed that the actions of the UN and the people who ran the refugee camps are not indicative of the surrounding culture.

Look. A refugee camp run by a mixture of locals and strangers is not indicative of the local culture. They are, in fact, set up when the normal activity of the surrounding cultures has gone to hell in a handbasket. Consequently, to try and equate the two is illogical.

<snip>

We are not talking about the degree of personal religiosity of this man, but about what his cultural background was. I bet you the "Daniel", "Elliott", and "Isabella" you knew were all from Western cultures.

<snip>
I'm going to skip over the redundant and self-serving repetitions of your old points as well as your repeated demand for a level of proof you, yourself, refuse to meet and simply address this:

1) Nobody has successfully identified as a matter of fact just what the cultural influences on this man are.

2) Neither the OP nor any of his supporters have even tried to NAME the culture they claim influenced him, much less show that it includes tolerance for child abuse/molestation.

3) Nobody has shown even the slightest evidence to indicate that the man was not simply lying in an attempt to avoid punishment.

4) Neither the OP nor any of his supporters has made the slightest effort to determine whether the man's claims are true before diving into a broad and undirected attack on "cultures" that they claim condone child abuse/molestation, even though they have failed to show any evidence of any culture that does any such thing.

5) The articles that have been posted as purported evidence have, in fact, shown the exact opposite of what the OP and his supporters have been claiming.

6) The western cultures that you "bet" "Daniel", "Elliott", and "Isabella" came from also include distressing amounts of child abuse/molestation. Tell us now how those cultures condone those practices but still are somehow different from whatever unnamed culture it was who produced the one alleged molester in the OP story.

The bottom line is this: If you cannot see the bogus-ness of the OP argument, then...well...frankly, that does not speak well for your reasoning abilities. Since I know that you are an intelligent person, then I have to assume you can see the bogus-ness of it, and that, frankly, does not speak well of your claims not to agree with the OP's blatantly bigoted statements. Your continued insistence on trying to win a point about the man's name without actually improving your argument about it at all could be taken as support for either supposition about you, but not in a good way.

Look. A refugee camp run by a mixture of locals and strangers is not indicative of the local culture.
WHOA. This is what I am trying to point out to you: it is NOT a "mixture of locals and strangers", it is entirely locals. The UN pointed out to an absence of non-locals as the problem (which is a peculiar remark in itself, showing some contempt for the locals, but never mind that).
They are, in fact, set up when the normal activity of the surrounding cultures has gone to hell in a handbasket.
Horrendous outbursts of violence unfortunately IS the normal activity in Sierra Leonean culture. Heavy-handed British occupation kept that down for a while, but now it's back. We can hope that the culture will evolve in a better direction, but let's not pretend that it has been idyllic and paradisical until now.
1) Nobody has successfully identified as a matter of fact just what the cultural influences on this man are.
He is a native of Sierra Leone, whose parents wished him to be devoted to the prophet Muhammad.
2) Neither the OP nor any of his supporters have even tried to NAME the culture they claim influenced him, much less show that it includes tolerance for child abuse/molestation.
Muslim Sierra Leonean is his cultural background. The evidence that tolerance for child abuse is widespread in the culture is weak.
3) Nobody has shown even the slightest evidence to indicate that the man was not simply lying in an attempt to avoid punishment.
True. And I would add that nobody has confirmed from any other source that the man even said what Fox, and only Fox, quotes him as saying (I do regard Fox as the kind of source for which a second confirmation really ought to be required).
4) Neither the OP nor any of his supporters has made the slightest effort to determine whether the man's claims are true before diving into a broad and undirected attack on "cultures" that they claim condone child abuse/molestation, even though they have failed to show any evidence of any culture that does any such thing.
"Weak" evidence has been shown; saying there isn't "any" is an overstatement.
5) The articles that have been posted as purported evidence have, in fact, shown the exact opposite of what the OP and his supporters have been claiming.
Huh? The articles show that influential religious leaders in Saudi Arabia condone child "brides", and that Sierra Leone had a pervasive problem with child abuse in at least one agency. This is not strong evidence, but it's not nothing, and most certainly doesn't say "the opposite": are you claiming these articles prove that there is LESS child abuse in those cultures than usual?
6) The western cultures that you "bet" "Daniel", "Elliott", and "Isabella" came from also include distressing amounts of child abuse/molestation. Tell us now how those cultures condone those practices but still are somehow different from whatever unnamed culture it was who produced the one alleged molester in the OP story.
The assertion (which I do not find strongly supported, but do not see as absurd, either) is that the cultures in a wide swath of the Muslim world from Arabia to West Africa include a FAR HIGHER level of both child molestation itself and of open toleration of child molestation. This is the same region where genital mutilation is a widespread practice, so I hardly think it unreasonable to posit that other forms of gross abuse are common there; the furthest I can go in agreeing with you is to say that the evidence presented is slight given the breadth of the accusation.
The bottom line is this: If you cannot see the bogus-ness of the OP argument, then...well...frankly, that does not speak well for your reasoning abilities.
I find it insufficiently supported, but not at all implausible.
Since I know that you are an intelligent person, then I have to assume you can see the bogus-ness of it, and that, frankly, does not speak well of your claims not to agree with the OP's blatantly bigoted statements.
This must be your bottom line here. You think that it is "bigotry" to point out horrific aspects of other cultures? In Sierra Leone, the Muslims cut off their little girls' clits, as a matter of routine, and until two centuries ago were among the world's top exporters of castrated boys; Muslims and non-Muslims alike lop off the hands and whole arms of people from rival communities as their means of "political expression"; but you think it is unfair to think they might be abusive to children?
Your continued insistence on trying to win a point about the man's name without actually improving your argument about it at all could be taken as support for either supposition about you, but not in a good way.
I don't see where my argument about the name needed to be "improved". You are taking for granted the Western world's casual way of giving names willy-nilly to their kids, whatever sounds nice, and think it is reasonable to assume it works that way everywhere. No, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a non-Muslim in a polarized country like Sierra Leone names a child "slave of Muhammad".

WHOA. This is what I am trying to point out to you: it is NOT a "mixture of locals and strangers", it is entirely locals. The UN pointed out to an absence of non-locals as the problem (which is a peculiar remark in itself, showing some contempt for the locals, but never mind that).

Horrendous outbursts of violence unfortunately IS the normal activity in Sierra Leonean culture. Heavy-handed British occupation kept that down for a while, but now it's back. We can hope that the culture will evolve in a better direction, but let's not pretend that it has been idyllic and paradisical until now.....

Wow. You seem to be deliberately trying to miss the point.

Unless you can provide that these aid workers in refugee camps were acting according to the established cultural norms of Sierra Leone, you have no evidence for a culture of child molestation in the region.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Sierra Leone culture is an endless cycle of horrendous violence? Because you sound a wee bit racist saying things like that.

Wow. You seem to be deliberately trying to miss the point.
The only point I was originally trying to make to you was that YOU WERE IN ERROR claiming that the aid workers were non-locals; even your watered-down claim that they weren't all locals was in error.
Unless you can provide that these aid workers in refugee camps were acting according to the established cultural norms of Sierra Leone, you have no evidence for a culture of child molestation in the region.
I have agreed that this story, in and of itself, is very weak as evidence of a general cultural attitude, although I find the comment from the UN that the problem was a lack of people from elsewhere rather telling.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that Sierra Leone culture is an endless cycle of horrendous violence? Because you sound a wee bit racist saying things like that.
Didn't you pay attention to the news when Sierra Leone (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2000/08/junger200008?currentPage=2) was in the abyss?
The coast now divided into Sierra Leone and Liberia used to be called just "the Slave Coast". It had been the epicenter of the slave trade since medieval times, when it had principally involved eunuchs shipped to the Arabs; with the expansion of the slave trade after the Europeans got involved, the population was decimated by intertribal slave raids escalating into brutal wars. Britain and the US both used the area to repatriate slaves in the second quarter of the 19th century, but the returnees no longer fit in well with the natives; in the US section ("Liberia"), the repatriates were turned into a ruling elite, while in the British section ("Sierra Leone") order was imposed by a more straightforward military occupation.

The only point I was originally trying to make to you was that YOU WERE IN ERROR claiming that the aid workers were non-locals; even your watered-down claim that they weren't all locals was in error.

My point was that it doesn't matter. Unless you can show that it was part of the local cultural practices, it is still not evidence.

I have agreed that this story, in and of itself, is very weak as evidence of a general cultural attitude, although I find the comment from the UN that the problem was a lack of people from elsewhere rather telling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1842512.stm

Here. The BBC article from whence your quote originally claim. If you read it, you will see that it explicitly says that both locals and UN workers were involved in the abuse.

Didn't you pay attention to the news when Sierra Leone (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2000/08/junger200008?currentPage=2) was in the abyss?
The coast now divided into Sierra Leone and Liberia used to be called just "the Slave Coast". It had been the epicenter of the slave trade since medieval times, when it had principally involved eunuchs shipped to the Arabs; with the expansion of the slave trade after the Europeans got involved, the population was decimated by intertribal slave raids escalating into brutal wars. Britain and the US both used the area to repatriate slaves in the second quarter of the 19th century, but the returnees no longer fit in well with the natives; in the US section ("Liberia"), the repatriates were turned into a ruling elite, while in the British section ("Sierra Leone") order was imposed by a more straightforward military occupation.

You don't have any evidence at all that child molestation is a problem in Sierra Leone, do you?

Wow. You seem to be deliberately trying to miss the point.

Unless you can provide that these aid workers in refugee camps were acting according to the established cultural norms of Sierra Leone, you have no evidence for a culture of child molestation in the region.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Sierra Leone culture is an endless cycle of horrendous violence? Because you sound a wee bit racist saying things like that.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sl.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107959.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone

http://www.globalissues.org/article/88/sierra-leone

and to give it context...

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/34/index.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sl.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107959.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone

http://www.globalissues.org/article/88/sierra-leone

and to give it context...

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/34/index.html

Do you have a point?

<snip>

I find it insufficiently supported, but not at all implausible.

<snip> No, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a non-Muslim in a polarized country like Sierra Leone names a child "slave of Muhammad".
The two above lines tell me all I need to know about your argument in this thread. When you said earlier that you do not support the OP's argument, you were lying. When you claimed, with various different wordings, that you were not trying to imply anything about other cultures, you were lying. And like the OP, you are possibly deliberately obfuscating exactly WHICH culture you are blaming here, because you are now insisting that Sierra Leone does condone child abuse while still emphasizing your belief that this man is a Muslim. And I notice that your translation of his name has now mutated from "servant of Muhammad" to "slave of Muhammad." Are you planning to carry it to any further extremes?

If you want to insult a nation and/or a religion by making unfounded accusations of them condoning child abuse/molestation, then just do so already. Don't try to deflect blame for your views by pretending that you're not really making that argument. It's a prejudiced argument, and you are making it.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sl.html
Not a single word about child abuse/molestation.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107959.html
This one makes very brief mention of conscription of child soldiers during the past war, but talks about prosecution of the leader resonsible for that. It makes zero suggestion that that practice was culturally acceptable in Sierra Leone, and it says nothing at all about child abuse/molestation or whether that is culturally acceptable in Sierra Leone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone
Not a single word about child abuse/molestation.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/88/sierra-leone
This talks about war atrocities during Sierra Leone's war, including conscription of child soldiers, but it makes zero suggestion that that practice was culturally acceptable in Sierra Leone, and it says nothing at all about child abuse/molestation or whether that is culturally acceptable in Sierra Leone.

and to give it context...

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/34/index.html
And this does not help us at all.

My point was that it doesn't matter. Unless you can show that it was part of the local cultural practices, it is still not evidence.

I have agreed repeatedly that it is weak evidence, not enough in isolation to show a general pattern. It is, however, some evidence. Put it in the context of how children have (both recently, and historically as many centuries back as we have records) been treated there (enslaved, mutilated, tortured), and I do not find it unreasonable to infer that sexual exploitation would be seen as practically nothing.
If you read it, you will see that it explicitly says that both locals and UN workers were involved in the abuse.

It says the UN workers WERE locals. Some "peacekeeping" troops from neighboring countries were cited, but the "problem" is said to have been a failure to bring in workers from elsewhere, and the article ends with disdainful remarks about the local culture.

I have agreed repeatedly that it is weak evidence, not enough in isolation to show a general pattern. It is, however, some evidence. Put it in the context of how children have (both recently, and historically as many centuries back as we have records) been treated there (enslaved, mutilated, tortured), and I do not find it unreasonable to infer that sexual exploitation would be seen as practically nothing.

It says the UN workers WERE locals. Some "peacekeeping" troops from neighboring countries were cited, but the "problem" is said to have been a failure to bring in workers from elsewhere, and the article ends with disdainful remarks about the local culture.

You don't have any evidence at all that child molestation is a problem in Sierra Leone, do you?

I have agreed repeatedly that it is weak evidence, not enough in isolation to show a general pattern. It is, however, some evidence. Put it in the context of how children have (both recently, and historically as many centuries back as we have records) been treated there (enslaved, mutilated, tortured), and I do not find it unreasonable to infer that sexual exploitation would be seen as practically nothing.
That's called a prejudice.

And the argument is not that abuses and atrocities have occurred in a country that has been wracked by brutal war for so long.

The argument is that abuse/molestation of children is an ACCEPTED CULTURAL TRADITION there and that people engage in that, thinking it is okay to do.

Not one single article put up as proof so far has supported that argument. Rather, all have shown native people of Sierra Leone reporting such abuses as abuses and atrocities and seeking help in making them stop. That is a strong indicator that it is not considered culturally acceptable to treat children this way.

Therefore, any argument that says that, in Sierra Leone, abusing/molesting children is a cultural tradition that influenced Mr. Kudsy to do what he did is a flat-out lie.

It says the UN workers WERE locals. Some "peacekeeping" troops from neighboring countries were cited, but the "problem" is said to have been a failure to bring in workers from elsewhere, and the article ends with disdainful remarks about the local culture.
You and every other supporter of this prejudiced argument have repeatedly ignored the point that other cultures also contain individuals who commit abuse/molestation of children, but those cultures are not tarred as being okay with that. All you are doing here is repeating -- insisting upon -- a slander against the people of Sierra Leone.

When you said earlier that you do not support the OP's argument, you were lying.
You forced me into doing research. The more I find out about Sierra Leone, the grosser it appears. I cannot link to the article on their penectomy techniques for preparing boys for sale as eunuchs because that is not PG enough for this board; the clitoridectomies and labial stitchings of female children are even worse because that is done to almost all of them. Horrific violence, a sick obsession with bodily mutilation, and enslavement of children have been pervasive in this culture for a very long time.
And like the OP, you are possibly deliberately obfuscating exactly WHICH culture you are blaming here, because you are now insisting that Sierra Leone does condone child abuse while still emphasizing your belief that this man is a Muslim.
The majority of Sierra Leoneans are Muslim. The Muslims of Sierra Leone are a subculture which appears to be worse than the general culture of the area: the slave trade was introduced to this area when the Muslims came, for example.
And I notice that your translation of his name has now mutated from "servant of Muhammad" to "slave of Muhammad."
I TOLD you, you'd forced me to look it up, and I had found out that "servant" was not nearly strong enough to translate the meaning of "Abdul" correctly.
Are you planning to carry it to any further extremes?

If you want to insult a nation and/or a religion by making unfounded accusations of them condoning child abuse/molestation, then just do so already.
It is abundantly clear that children there are treated worse than dirt in any number of horrible ways. We only have here one case, plus one article talking
about one outbreak, of specifically sexual abuse, but while that is not evidence in isolation, the rest of what I find about the culture makes me find the accusation not the least bit "unfounded".

You forced me into doing research....
It is abundantly clear that children there are treated worse than dirt in any number of horrible ways. We only have here one case, plus one article talking
about one outbreak, of specifically sexual abuse, but while that is not evidence in isolation, the rest of what I find about the culture makes me find the accusation not the least bit "unfounded".

You don't have any evidence at all that child molestation is a problem in Sierra Leone, do you?

You forced me into doing research. The more I find out about Sierra Leone, the grosser it appears. I cannot link to the article on their penectomy techniques for preparing boys for sale as eunuchs because that is not PG enough for this board; the clitoridectomies and labial stitchings of female children are even worse because that is done to almost all of them. Horrific violence, a sick obsession with bodily mutilation, and enslavement of children have been pervasive in this culture for a very long time.

The majority of Sierra Leoneans are Muslim. The Muslims of Sierra Leone are a subculture which appears to be worse than the general culture of the area: the slave trade was introduced to this area when the Muslims came, for example.

I TOLD you, you'd forced me to look it up, and I had found out that "servant" was not nearly strong enough to translate the meaning of "Abdul" correctly.
Are you planning to carry it to any further extremes?

It is abundantly clear that children there are treated worse than dirt in any number of horrible ways. We only have here one case, plus one article talking
about one outbreak, of specifically sexual abuse, but while that is not evidence in isolation, the rest of what I find about the culture makes me find the accusation not the least bit "unfounded".
Well, at least you've decided to stop pretending you are not jumping on the OP's bigot-bandwagon.

I also notice that you are still ignoring the point that every culture has members who abuse children, but I don't see you tarring and feathering them the way you are, apparently, BOTH Islam and all of Africa.

So, what part of Mr. Kudsy's cultural heritage do you think REALLY made him allegedly diddle that autistic boy? The Muslim part, or the black part? I'm just trying to figure out who you are actually trying to denigrate.

Finally, I further notice that you fail yet again to provide any source information whatsoever for your claims. I happen to know that genital mutiliation and human trafficking are rife in that part of the world -- as well as others -- but considering your track record so far of demanding proof from others while offering none yourself, and considering the well demonstrated logical flaws in your argument as a whole, I am not inclined to just take your word for it.

You don't have any evidence at all that child molestation is a problem in Sierra Leone, do you?
We have a Sierra Leonean allegedly saying it is fine in his country; we have one article saying it was rampant within one program staffed principally by Sierra Leoneans with a few from neighboring countries, with remarks that this problem is caused by hiring people from that culture; and we have a centuries-long history of treating children in grotesque manners, routinely.
This is the evidence, draw from it what conclusions you will.

No, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a non-Muslim in a polarized country like Sierra Leone names a child "slave of Muhammad".

So how is his parents these days?

Well, at least you've decided to stop pretending you are not jumping on the OP's bigot-bandwagon.
I don't think it is "bigotry" to call horrific abuses horrific. They are.
I also notice that you are still ignoring the point that every culture has members who abuse children, but I don't see you tarring and feathering them the way you are, apparently, BOTH Islam and all of Africa.
This is a peculiarly unfortunate intersection of Islam and Africa: the clash of these in Sierra Leone seems to have brought out all the worst features of both.
Finally, I further notice that you fail yet again to provide any source information whatsoever for your claims.
You hadn't demanded any. I have pointed out that some of the grosser stuff is really inappropriate to link to on this board.
I happen to know that genital mutiliation and human trafficking are rife in that part of the world

If you already know that, then do I need to show you more about it? That IS the culture there (along with other forms of mutilation, humiliation, and intense violence), and it has been so for as long as we have any record of the region.
-- as well as others --

But Sierra Leone is, if not THE worse, certainly awfully close to the WORST in these regards.